ILCS » Chapter 765 · Act 1065

765 ILCS 1065/8

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(765 ILCS 1065/8) (from Ch. 140, par. 358)
    Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.
    (b) This Act does not affect:
    (1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, provided however, that a contractual or other duty to maintain secrecy or limit use of a trade secret shall not be deemed to be void or unenforceable solely for lack of durational or geographical limitation on the duty;
    (2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret;
    (3) criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or
    (4) the definition of a trade secret contained in any other Act of this State.
(Source: P.A. 85-366.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Mission Measurement Corp. v. Blackbaud, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mission Measurement Corp. v. Blackbaud, Inc. (2017) illinoised · cites it 3× “2005) (quoting 765 ILCS 1065/8 ). The ITSA, however, "does not affect contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret[,]" see 765 ILCS 1065/8(b)(1), or "other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Pepsico, Inc., a Corporation v. William E. Redmond, Jr., and the Quaker Oats Company, a Corporation (1995) ca7 · cites it 3× “Although it does not affect our decision to uphold the preliminary injunction, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that PepsiCo is likely to prevail on its claim of trade secret misappropriation under Illinois common law.”
American Center for Excellence in Surgical Assisting Inc. v. Community College District 502 (2016) ilnd · cites it 2× “ITSA Preemption of the Remaining Claims Defendants contend that ITSA preempts ACE’s four remaining claims: unjust enrichment, fraud, conversion, and promissory estoppel. Doc. 20 at 3-8; Doc.”
Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp. (2000) ilnd · cites it 4× “Specifically, Section 8(a) states: Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State providing civil remedies for vmisappropriation of a trade secret.”
J.S.T. Corporation v. Foxconn Interconnect Technolog (2020) ca7 “has stated a discrete claim of unjust enrich- ment, given that the Illinois Trade Secrets Act displaces common-law un- just enrichment claims based on the misappropriation of trade secrets.”
SKF USA, INC. v. Bjerkness (2009) ilnd · cites it 2× “” 765 ILCS 1065/8(a). The Act preempts only those claims that are based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, however, and not “other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Alpha School Bus Co., Inc. v. Wagner (2009) illappct “]” 765 ILCS 1065/8 (West 2006). Plaintiffs first challenge the trial court’s finding that the Trade Secrets Act preempted their claim that Wagner breached his fiduciary duty.”
Labor Ready, Inc. v. Williams Staffing, LLC (2001) ilnd · cites it 2× “See 765 ILCS 1065/8(a) (stating that the “Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, resti-tutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret”); see also Chemetall GMBH v.”
Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. v. Chiquita Brands International Inc. (2009) ilnd · cites it 2× “Trade Secrets Act preempts common law claims based on misappropriation of trade secrets, 765 ILCS 1065/8(a) (“this Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State providing civil remedies for misappropriation of…”
Combined Metals of Chicago Ltd. Partnership v. Airtek, Inc. (1997) ilnd · cites it 3× “765 ILCS 1065/8; see Thermodyne Food Serv.”
AutoMed Technologies, Inc. v. Eller (2001) ilnd “765 ILCS 1065/8(a). The statute explicitly abolishes all common law causes of action, except breach of contract, predicated on a trade secret theory.”
X-It Products, LLC v. Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc. (2002) vaed · cites it 2× “Section 8(a) of the ITSA provides that: “This Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State providing civil remedies for misappropriation of trade secret.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
— 765 ILCS 1065/8(a) — 22 cases
Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp. (2000) ilnd “Specifically, Section 8(a) states: Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State providing civil remedies for vmisappropriation of a trade secret.”
American Center for Excellence in Surgical Assisting Inc. v. Community College District 502 (2016) ilnd “ITSA Preemption of the Remaining Claims Defendants contend that ITSA preempts ACE’s four remaining claims: unjust enrichment, fraud, conversion, and promissory estoppel. Doc. 20 at 3-8; Doc.”
Labor Ready, Inc. v. Williams Staffing, LLC (2001) ilnd “See 765 ILCS 1065/8(a) (stating that the “Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, resti-tutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret”); see also Chemetall GMBH v.”
AutoMed Technologies, Inc. v. Eller (2001) ilnd “765 ILCS 1065/8(a). The statute explicitly abolishes all common law causes of action, except breach of contract, predicated on a trade secret theory.”
Pepsico, Inc., a Corporation v. William E. Redmond, Jr., and the Quaker Oats Company, a Corporation (1995) ca7 “Although it does not affect our decision to uphold the preliminary injunction, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that PepsiCo is likely to prevail on its claim of trade secret misappropriation under Illinois common law.”
— 765 ILCS 1065/8(b) — 4 cases
Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A. v. Chiquita Brands International Inc. (2009) ilnd “Trade Secrets Act preempts common law claims based on misappropriation of trade secrets, 765 ILCS 1065/8(a) (“this Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State providing civil remedies for misappropriation of…”
Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp. (2000) ilnd “Specifically, Section 8(a) states: Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State providing civil remedies for vmisappropriation of a trade secret.”
X-It Products, LLC v. Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc. (2002) vaed “Section 8(a) of the ITSA provides that: “This Act is intended to displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, unfair competition, and other laws of this State providing civil remedies for misappropriation of trade secret.”
Eagle Trust Fund v. Miller (2022) illappct
— 765 ILCS 1065/8(b)(1) — 10 cases
Pepsico, Inc., a Corporation v. William E. Redmond, Jr., and the Quaker Oats Company, a Corporation (1995) ca7 “Although it does not affect our decision to uphold the preliminary injunction, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that PepsiCo is likely to prevail on its claim of trade secret misappropriation under Illinois common law.”
Mission Measurement Corp. v. Blackbaud, Inc. (2017) illinoised “2005) (quoting 765 ILCS 1065/8 ). The ITSA, however, "does not affect contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret[,]" see 765 ILCS 1065/8(b)(1), or "other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Outsource International, Incorporated v. George Barton and Barton's Staffing Solutions, Incorporated (1999) ca7
SKF USA, INC. v. Bjerkness (2009) ilnd “” 765 ILCS 1065/8(a). The Act preempts only those claims that are based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, however, and not “other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Abbott-Interfast Corp. v. Harkabus (1993) illappct
— 765 ILCS 1065/8(b)(2) — 2 cases
Mission Measurement Corp. v. Blackbaud, Inc. (2017) illinoised “2005) (quoting 765 ILCS 1065/8 ). The ITSA, however, "does not affect contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret[,]" see 765 ILCS 1065/8(b)(1), or "other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Combined Metals of Chicago Ltd. Partnership v. Airtek, Inc. (1997) ilnd “765 ILCS 1065/8; see Thermodyne Food Serv.”
— 765 ILCS 1065/8(b)(l) — 5 cases
American Center for Excellence in Surgical Assisting Inc. v. Community College District 502 (2016) ilnd “ITSA Preemption of the Remaining Claims Defendants contend that ITSA preempts ACE’s four remaining claims: unjust enrichment, fraud, conversion, and promissory estoppel. Doc. 20 at 3-8; Doc.”
Strata Marketing, Inc. v. Murphy (2000) illappct
Coady v. Harpo, Inc. (1999) illappct
Lucini Italia Co. v. Grappolini (2002) ilnd
Abbott-Interfast Corp. v. Harkabus (1993) illappct
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.