ILCS » Chapter 765 · Act 1065

765 ILCS 1065/3

(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(765 ILCS 1065/3) (from Ch. 140, par. 353)
    Sec. 3. (a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court, an injunction may be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, provided that the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in appropriate circumstances for reasons including, but not limited to an elimination of the commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation, deterrence of willful and malicious misappropriation, or where the trade secret ceases to exist due to the fault of the enjoined party or others by improper means.
    (b) If the court determines that it would be unreasonable to prohibit future use due to an overriding public interest, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited.
    (c) In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by a court order.
(Source: P.A. 85-366.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Liebert Corp. v. Mazur
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Liebert Corp. v. Mazur (2005) illappct · cites it 2× “" 765 ILCS 1065/3 (West 2002). Under Illinois law, courts may also grant injunctive relief to prevent the inevitable use or disclosure of misappropriated trade secrets.”
IPOX Schuster, LLC v. Nikko Asset Management Co. (2016) ilnd “The ITSA grants courts authority to enjoin actual or threatened' misappropriation, 765 ILCS 1065/3, and to award damages to a person who is harmed by such misappropriation, including “the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation…”
Pepsico, Inc., a Corporation v. William E. Redmond, Jr., and the Quaker Oats Company, a Corporation (1995) ca7 “765 ILCS 1065/3(a); George S. May Int’l Co.”
Stenstrom Petroleum Services Group Inc. v. Mesch (2007) illappct “” 765 ILCS 1065/3 (West 2004). Using a theory of inevitable disclosure, “a plaintiff may prove a claim of trade secret misappropriation by demonstrating that defendant’s new employment will inevitably lead him to rely on the plaintiff’s trade secrets.”
Motorola, Inc. v. Lemko Corporation (2009) ilnd “§ 1030 , and the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (ITSA), 765 ILCS 1065/3 & 4. Motorola has also sued Jin, Wu, Bai, and Sheng for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.”
Computer Associates International v. Quest Software, Inc. (2004) ilnd “” 765 ILCS 1065/3(a); PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.”
System Development Services, Inc. v. Haarmann (2009) illappct “765 ILCS 1065/3, 4 (West 2006). In order to establish a violation of the Trade Secrets Act, a plaintiff is required to establish that information “was (1) a trade secret; (2) misappropriated; and (3) used in the defendant’s business.”
Saban v. Caremark RX, L.L.C. (2011) ilnd ““Misappropriation” is disclosure or use of a trade secret by one who knows he has a duty not to do so.”
EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack (1999) nysd “See 765 ILCS 1065/3(a). New York has not enacted a similar statute.”
UTStarcom, Inc. v. Starent Networks, Corp. (2009) ilnd “Likelihood of Success on the Merits: Illinois Trade Secret Act To determine the likelihood of success on the merits in this case, the Court must consider the elements of the Illinois Trade Secret Act (“ITSA”).”
Triumph Packaging Group v. Ward (2011) ilnd “See 765 ILCS 1065/3(a). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, “[t]rade secret law serves to protect standards of commercial morality and encourage invention and innovation while maintaining the public interest in having free and open competition in the manufacture and sale of…”
Destiny Health, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (2015) illappct “765 ILCS 1065/3, 4 (West 2008). In order to establish improper use of trade secrets, a plaintiff must show: "(1) a trade secret existed; (2) the secret was misappropriated through improper acquisition, disclosure, or use; and (3) the owner of the trade secret was damaged by the…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— 765 ILCS 1065/3(a) — 12 cases
Pepsico, Inc., a Corporation v. William E. Redmond, Jr., and the Quaker Oats Company, a Corporation (1995) ca7 “765 ILCS 1065/3(a); George S. May Int’l Co.”
Computer Associates International v. Quest Software, Inc. (2004) ilnd “” 765 ILCS 1065/3(a); PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.”
Saban v. Caremark RX, L.L.C. (2011) ilnd ““Misappropriation” is disclosure or use of a trade secret by one who knows he has a duty not to do so.”
EarthWeb, Inc. v. Schlack (1999) nysd “See 765 ILCS 1065/3(a). New York has not enacted a similar statute.”
Triumph Packaging Group v. Ward (2011) ilnd “See 765 ILCS 1065/3(a). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, “[t]rade secret law serves to protect standards of commercial morality and encourage invention and innovation while maintaining the public interest in having free and open competition in the manufacture and sale of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.