Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-3321 (2026)

Misappropriation of trade secret; injunctive or other protective relief

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-3321. Misappropriation of trade secret; injunctive or other protective relief. (a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.

(b) In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time for which use could have been prohibited. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable.

(c) In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.

History: L. 1981, ch. 214, § 2; L. 1988, ch. 221, § 1; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2001–2019 · leading case: API Americas Inc. v. Miller, 380 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (D. Kan. 2019).
API Americas Inc. v. Miller, 380 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (D. Kan. 2019). · cites it 6× “§ 1836 (b)(1) ; K.S.A. § 60-3321. The elements required to establish a claim for *1148 misappropriation are essentially the same under both the DTSA and the KUTSA.”
Wolfe Elec., Inc. v. Duckworth, 266 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 4× “See K.S.A. 60-3321 (injunctive relief); K.S.A.”
Progressive Prods., Inc. v. Swartz, 258 P.3d 969 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 4× “” “K.S.A. 60-3321. “(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
Progressive Prods., Inc. v. Swartz, 205 P.3d 766 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “Instead, it appears the district court utilized K.S.A. 60-3321, which permits the court to enter an injunction that conditions future use upon payment of a royalty (royalty injunction): “(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
Universal Engraving, Inc. v. Duarte, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (D. Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. § 60-3321(a) (2006). 55 . Fryetech, Inc.”
Tank Connection, LLC v. Haight, 161 F. Supp. 3d 957 (D. Kan. 2016). · cites it 2× “” K.S.A. § 60-3321(a). In the pretrial order Tank Connection requested “[i]njunctive relief barring Mr.”
Bradbury Co., Inc. v. Teissier-Ducros, 413 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (D. Kan. 2006). · cites it 2× “Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3321 (a). VI. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS When analyzing choice of law provisions in an action for tort, Kansas applies the rule of lex loci delicti, or the site of the injury.”
Dodson Int'l Parts, Inc. v. Altendorf, 347 F. Supp. 2d 997 (D. Kan. 2004). “The basis for this relief is found at K.S.A. 60-3321(c), which provides that in appropriate circumstances, the court may order affirmative acts to protect trade secrets.”
Farmers Grp., Inc. v. Lee, 28 P.3d 413 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). “We need only decide whether we agree with her conclusion that *390 the original injunction incorporating the parties’ agreement contravened Kansas public policy.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3321(a) — 6 cases
API Americas Inc. v. Miller, 380 F. Supp. 3d 1141 (D. Kan. 2019). “§ 1836 (b)(1) ; K.S.A. § 60-3321. The elements required to establish a claim for *1148 misappropriation are essentially the same under both the DTSA and the KUTSA.”
Wolfe Elec., Inc. v. Duckworth, 266 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2011). “See K.S.A. 60-3321 (injunctive relief); K.S.A.”
Universal Engraving, Inc. v. Duarte, 519 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (D. Kan. 2007). “K.S.A. § 60-3321(a) (2006). 55 . Fryetech, Inc.”
Tank Connection, LLC v. Haight, 161 F. Supp. 3d 957 (D. Kan. 2016). “” K.S.A. § 60-3321(a). In the pretrial order Tank Connection requested “[i]njunctive relief barring Mr.”
Progressive Prods., Inc. v. Swartz, 205 P.3d 766 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “Instead, it appears the district court utilized K.S.A. 60-3321, which permits the court to enter an injunction that conditions future use upon payment of a royalty (royalty injunction): “(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3321(b) — 2 cases
Progressive Prods., Inc. v. Swartz, 258 P.3d 969 (Kan. 2011). “” “K.S.A. 60-3321. “(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
Progressive Prods., Inc. v. Swartz, 205 P.3d 766 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “Instead, it appears the district court utilized K.S.A. 60-3321, which permits the court to enter an injunction that conditions future use upon payment of a royalty (royalty injunction): “(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
— K.S.A. § 60-3321(c) — 1 case
Dodson Int'l Parts, Inc. v. Altendorf, 347 F. Supp. 2d 997 (D. Kan. 2004). “The basis for this relief is found at K.S.A. 60-3321(c), which provides that in appropriate circumstances, the court may order affirmative acts to protect trade secrets.”
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.