K.S.A. » Chapter 60
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-3322 (2026)

Recovery of damages for misappropriation

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

60-3322. Recovery of damages for misappropriation. (a) Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders a monetary recovery inequitable, a complainant 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. In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for 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).

History: L. 1981, ch. 214, § 3; L. 1988, ch. 221, § 2; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2023 · leading case: Progressive Prods., Inc. v. Swartz, 258 P.3d 969 (Kan. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Progressive Prods., Inc. v. Swartz, 258 P.3d 969 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 4× “” “K.S.A. 60-3322. “(a) Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders a monetaiy recovery inequitable, a complainant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation.”
Tank Connection, LLC v. Haight, 161 F. Supp. 3d 957 (D. Kan. 2016). · cites it 4× “But the question is whether they constitute “actual loss caused by misappropriation” under K.S.A. § 60-3322. The court finds no Kansas authority on this question, while other jurisdictions interpreting the Uniform Trade Secrets Act have adopted differing treatment of such costs,…”
Fireworks Spectacular, Inc. v. Premier Pyrotechnics, Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (D. Kan. 2001). · cites it 4× “Premier Pyrotechnics used the lists and the notes to solicit customers on its own behalf, without authorization from Plaintiffs, under circumstances where it knew, or should have known, that its knowledge of the lists and the notes was derived from a person owing a duty to…”
Freda v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 656 F.3d 570 (7th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “1065 (statute that C & F claimed was violated); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3322 (statute found to apply); Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition § 45; Milgrim on Trade Secrets § 15.”
ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 615 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (D. Kan. 2009). · cites it 8× “K.S.A. § 60-3322(a) (providing that the jury decides whether punitive damages should be awarded and the court decides the amount).”
Wolfe Elec., Inc. v. Duckworth, 266 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2011). “60-3321 (injunctive relief); K.S.A. 60-3322 (damages); K.S.A. 60-3323 (attorney fees).”
Vasquez v. Ybarra, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (D. Kan. 2001). · cites it 2× “§ 1116 , and misappropriation of trade secrets, K.S.A. § 60-3322. Plaintiffs claim defendant is liable because, two years after they bought their restaurant from defendant’s parents, she opened up a similar restaurant “across the alley” from their restaurant, used identical menu…”
Paradigm All., Inc. v. Celeritas Tech., LLC, 722 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Kan. 2010). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. § 60-3322(b). Subpart (a) of this statute identifies recoverable damages.”
ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 432 F. App'x 732 (10th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “at 1605-08 ; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3322 . While the post-trial motions were pending, ICE filed a motion for attorney’s fees, and the court ultimately awarded $1,138,013.”
All West Pet Supply Co. v. Hill's Pet Prods. Div., 840 F. Supp. 1433 (D. Kan. 1993). “In Counts 4 and 5, All West claims exemplary damages and attorney’s fees from each of the defendants under K.S.A.1992 Supp. 60-3322(b) and K.S.A. 60 — 3323(iii), alleging that their misappropriation of All West’s trade secret was willful and malicious.”
Biocore Med. v. Khosrowshahi, 80 F. App'x 619 (10th Cir. 2003). “266-68 (citing K.S.A. § 60-3322). BioCore, 96 F.Supp.2d at 1224 (applying the Kansas Uniform Trade *630 Secrets Act).”
Progressive Prods., Inc. v. Swartz, 205 P.3d 766 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “See K.S.A. 60-3322 (stating that measure of damages may be measured by imposition of liability for reasonable royalty).”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-3322(a) — 5 cases
Progressive Prods., Inc. v. Swartz, 258 P.3d 969 (Kan. 2011). “” “K.S.A. 60-3322. “(a) Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders a monetaiy recovery inequitable, a complainant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation.”
Tank Connection, LLC v. Haight, 161 F. Supp. 3d 957 (D. Kan. 2016). “But the question is whether they constitute “actual loss caused by misappropriation” under K.S.A. § 60-3322. The court finds no Kansas authority on this question, while other jurisdictions interpreting the Uniform Trade Secrets Act have adopted differing treatment of such costs,…”
ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 615 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (D. Kan. 2009). “K.S.A. § 60-3322(a) (providing that the jury decides whether punitive damages should be awarded and the court decides the amount).”
ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 615 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (D. Kan. 2009).
Brinker v. McCaslin, 538 P.3d 1101 (Kan. Ct. App. 2023).
— K.S.A. § 60-3322(b) — 4 cases
ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 615 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (D. Kan. 2009). “K.S.A. § 60-3322(a) (providing that the jury decides whether punitive damages should be awarded and the court decides the amount).”
Fireworks Spectacular, Inc. v. Premier Pyrotechnics, Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (D. Kan. 2001). “Premier Pyrotechnics used the lists and the notes to solicit customers on its own behalf, without authorization from Plaintiffs, under circumstances where it knew, or should have known, that its knowledge of the lists and the notes was derived from a person owing a duty to…”
Paradigm All., Inc. v. Celeritas Tech., LLC, 722 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Kan. 2010). “K.S.A. § 60-3322(b). Subpart (a) of this statute identifies recoverable damages.”
All West Pet Supply Co. v. Hill's Pet Prods. Div., 840 F. Supp. 1433 (D. Kan. 1993). “In Counts 4 and 5, All West claims exemplary damages and attorney’s fees from each of the defendants under K.S.A.1992 Supp. 60-3322(b) and K.S.A. 60 — 3323(iii), alleging that their misappropriation of All West’s trade secret was willful and malicious.”
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.