Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-3326 (2026)

Application of act

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-3326. Application of act. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), this act displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary and other law 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;

(2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or

(3) criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.

History: L. 1981, ch. 214, § 7; L. 1988, ch. 221, § 3; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Wolfe Elec., Inc. v. Duckworth, 266 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wolfe Elec., Inc. v. Duckworth, 266 P.3d 516 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 4× “Citing K.S.A. 60-3326 and caselaw, they therefore contend their dispositive motions based upon this ground should have been granted by the trial court.”

Swimwear Solution, Inc. v. Orlando Bathing Suit, LLC, 309 F. Supp. 3d 1022 (D. Kan. 2018). “K.S.A. 60-3326(b)(1). Burten v. Milton Bradley Co.”

Fireworks Spectacular, Inc. v. Premier Pyrotechnics, Inc., 86 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (D. Kan. 2000). · cites it 2× “” K.S.A. § 60-3326, however, states that the Uniform Trade Secrets Act "displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.”

C&f Packing Co., Inc. v. Ibp, Inc., & Pizza Hut, Inc., 224 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3326 (a). The district court found that Pizza Hut’s alleged fraud based upon alleged “knowingly false promises” and “acts of concealment” to be indistinguishable from its trade secret misappropriation.”

Progressive Prods., Inc. v. Swartz, 258 P.3d 969 (Kan. 2011). “” “K.S.A. 60-3326. “(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), this act displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.”

All West Pet Supply Co. v. Hill's Pet Prods. Div., 847 F. Supp. 858 (D. Kan. 1994). “2 See K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-3326(b)(l). Next, All West relies on eases applying the contract law of other jurisdictions in arguing that the confidentiality obligation of Hill’s is limited to the period of time, beyond termination of the contract, during which the information…”

Airport Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Airsys Atm, Inc., 144 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (D. Kan. 2001). · cites it 2× “” K.S.A. § 60-3326(a). Because defendant has not raised the issue, however, the Court need not address it.”

ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 615 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (D. Kan. 2009). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. § 60-3326(a) ("this act displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret”); Yeti By Molly Ltd.”

Retiree, Inc. v. Anspach, 95 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (D. Kan. 2015). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. § 60-3326(b)(l) ("This act does not affect: (1) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”

ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 432 F. App'x 732 (10th Cir. 2011). “Thus, although we recognize ICE’s argument that KUTSA “displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret,” see Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3326 (a), we do not see a conflict here.”

Tackett (D. Kan. 2026). · cites it 3× “” K.S.A. § 60-3326(a). However, the statute carves out an exception, providing that “[t]his 6 The court notes that even had it considered the new arguments in Defendants’ reply as well as Plaintiff’s surreply, it would not have changed the outcome of the court’s decision.”

Allen, Gibbs & Houlik v. Ralston (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “Preemption under the KUTSA The parties agree that the KUTSA preempts or "displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret" but "does not affect: (1) Contractual remedies .”

— K.S.A. § 60-3326(a) — 4 cases

Airport Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Airsys Atm, Inc., 144 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (D. Kan. 2001). “” K.S.A. § 60-3326(a). Because defendant has not raised the issue, however, the Court need not address it.”

ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 615 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (D. Kan. 2009). “See K.S.A. § 60-3326(a) ("this act displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret”); Yeti By Molly Ltd.”

Tackett (D. Kan. 2026). “” K.S.A. § 60-3326(a). However, the statute carves out an exception, providing that “[t]his 6 The court notes that even had it considered the new arguments in Defendants’ reply as well as Plaintiff’s surreply, it would not have changed the outcome of the court’s decision.”

— K.S.A. § 60-3326(b)(1) — 1 case

Swimwear Solution, Inc. v. Orlando Bathing Suit, LLC, 309 F. Supp. 3d 1022 (D. Kan. 2018). “K.S.A. 60-3326(b)(1). Burten v. Milton Bradley Co.”

— K.S.A. § 60-3326(b)(2) — 1 case

— K.S.A. § 60-3326(b)(l) — 2 cases

Retiree, Inc. v. Anspach, 95 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (D. Kan. 2015). “See K.S.A. § 60-3326(b)(l) ("This act does not affect: (1) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”

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.