ILCS » Chapter 765 · Act 1065

765 ILCS 1065/4

(a) In addition to the relief provided for by Section 3, a person is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(765 ILCS 1065/4) (from Ch. 140, par. 354)
    Sec. 4. (a) In addition to the relief provided for by Section 3, a person is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. If neither damages nor unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation are proved by a preponderance of the evidence, the court may award damages caused by misappropriation measured in terms of a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret.
    (b) If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (a).
(Source: P.A. 85-366.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case: Mangren Research and Development Corporation v. National Chemical Company, Incorporated, and National Mold Release Compa
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mangren Research and Development Corporation v. National Chemical Company, Incorporated, and National Mold Release Compa (1996) ca7 · cites it 4× “See 765 ILCS 1065/4(a). The jury found for Mangren and awarded compensatory damages of $252,684.”
Alpha School Bus Co., Inc. v. Wagner (2009) illappct “” 765 ILCS 1065/4 (West 2006). A “trade secret” is defined as: “information, including but not limited to *** data, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, *** process, financial data, or list of actual or potential customers or suppliers, that: (1)…”
McDonald's Corp. v. American Motorists Insurance (2001) illappct · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their damages, any unjust enrichment to [defendants, exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 765 ILCS 1065/4—5. 63. Additionally, [pjlaintiffs are entitled to a reasonable royalty for [defendants’ past or future use of or profits…”
Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. v. Chiquita Brands International Inc. (2009) ilnd “765 ILCS 1065/4 In order “to state a claim for trade secret misappropri *820 ation under the ITSA, a plaintiff must establish that it had: (1) a trade secret, (2) that the defendant misappropriated and (3) used for business purposes.”
Learning Curve Toys, Inc. v. Playwood Toys, Inc. (2003) ca7 “” 765 ILCS 1065/4(b). The jury was not given an instruction on exemplary damages because the district court granted Learning Curve’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on this issue prior to closing argument.”
Plastics v. United States Can Co. (2001) almd “See Illinois Trade Secrets Act, 765 ILCS 1065/4(a) (1997). In a trade secrets case applying Illinois law, Judge Posner strongly criticized the “simplistic extrapolation and childish arithmetic” inherent in a claim for unjust enrichment when the expert made no attempt to…”
Southwest Whey, Inc. v. Nutrition 101, Inc. (2000) ilcd “(West 1998)); (IV) Violation of Illinois Trade Secrets Act — Exemplary Damages, (765 ILCS 1065/4(b) (West 1998)); (V) Conversion; (VI) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (VII) Breach of Fiduciary Duty — Exemplary Damages; and (VIII) Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.”
RKI, Inc. v. Grimes (2002) ilnd “” 765 ILCS 1065/4(a). A reasonable royalty is “simply that amount which the trier of facts estimates a person desiring to use a patent right would be willing to pay for its use and a patent owner desiring to license the patent would be willing to accept.”
Total Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Staffing, Inc. (2023) illappct “765 ILCS 1065/4 (West 2018); Multimedia Sales & Marketing, Inc.”
Salsitz v. Kreiss (2000) illappct “In their demand for arbitration, defendants sought an injunction preventing plaintiffs from unfairly competing with AUS; monetary damages for plaintiffs’ violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (765 ILCS 1065/4(a) et seq. (West 1992)); damages for tortious interference with…”
IPOX Schuster, LLC v. Nikko Asset Mgmt. Co., Ltd. (2018) “Lazard has also moved for summary judgment on IPOX's request for punitive damages for its ITSA claim. Lazard Mem.”
Aculocity, LLC v. Force Marketing Holdings, LLC (2019) ilnd · cites it 2× “§ 504 (b) (Count IV) and damages for misappropriation under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, 765 ILCS 1065/4 (Count V) and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— 765 ILCS 1065/4(a) — 8 cases
Mangren Research and Development Corporation v. National Chemical Company, Incorporated, and National Mold Release Compa (1996) ca7 “See 765 ILCS 1065/4(a). The jury found for Mangren and awarded compensatory damages of $252,684.”
Plastics v. United States Can Co. (2001) almd “See Illinois Trade Secrets Act, 765 ILCS 1065/4(a) (1997). In a trade secrets case applying Illinois law, Judge Posner strongly criticized the “simplistic extrapolation and childish arithmetic” inherent in a claim for unjust enrichment when the expert made no attempt to…”
RKI, Inc. v. Grimes (2002) ilnd “” 765 ILCS 1065/4(a). A reasonable royalty is “simply that amount which the trier of facts estimates a person desiring to use a patent right would be willing to pay for its use and a patent owner desiring to license the patent would be willing to accept.”
Salsitz v. Kreiss (2000) illappct “In their demand for arbitration, defendants sought an injunction preventing plaintiffs from unfairly competing with AUS; monetary damages for plaintiffs’ violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (765 ILCS 1065/4(a) et seq. (West 1992)); damages for tortious interference with…”
Mission Measurement Corporation v. Blackbaud, INC (2019) ilnd
— 765 ILCS 1065/4(b) — 7 cases
Mangren Research and Development Corporation v. National Chemical Company, Incorporated, and National Mold Release Compa (1996) ca7 “See 765 ILCS 1065/4(a). The jury found for Mangren and awarded compensatory damages of $252,684.”
Learning Curve Toys, Inc. v. Playwood Toys, Inc. (2003) ca7 “” 765 ILCS 1065/4(b). The jury was not given an instruction on exemplary damages because the district court granted Learning Curve’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on this issue prior to closing argument.”
Southwest Whey, Inc. v. Nutrition 101, Inc. (2000) ilcd “(West 1998)); (IV) Violation of Illinois Trade Secrets Act — Exemplary Damages, (765 ILCS 1065/4(b) (West 1998)); (V) Conversion; (VI) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (VII) Breach of Fiduciary Duty — Exemplary Damages; and (VIII) Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.”
IPOX Schuster, LLC v. Nikko Asset Mgmt. Co., Ltd. (2018) “Lazard has also moved for summary judgment on IPOX's request for punitive damages for its ITSA claim. Lazard Mem.”
Learning Curve Toys, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Playwood Toys, Incorporated, Defendant-Counte (2003) ca7
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.