Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 365
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.880 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in KRS 365.880 to 365.900, unless the context requires otherwise: (1) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means; (2) "Misappropriation" means: (a) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who: 1. Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or 2. At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was: a. Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; b. Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or c. Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or 3. Before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake. (3) "Person" means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity. (4) "Trade secret" means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, data, device, method, technique, or process, that: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Effective: July 13, 1990 History: Created 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 300, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1990.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 2d 880 (E.D. Ky. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 2d 880 (E.D. Ky. 2003). · cites it 18× “PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 4 Plaintiffs’ third cause of action amounts to a suit under the Kentucky *890 Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“KUTSA”), KRS § 365.880 et seq. 5 “In order to prevail on a breach of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim, Plaintiffs must present evidence…”
Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016). · cites it 11× “9, 2015) (holding that plaintiffs client files, client list, and employee files were trade secrets where they were kept under “double lock and key” and confidentiality agreements specifically required employees not to take or reveal such information upon termination of their…”
Insight Kentucky Partners II, L.P. v. Preferred Auto. Servs., Inc., 514 S.W.3d 537 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “CROSS-APPEAL In its cross-appeal, Preferred first argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion to amend its complaint to add claim for a violation of the Kentucky Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“KUTSA”), KRS 365.880 et seq. Preferred contends that in denying the motion,…”
Auto Channel, Inc. v. Speed Vision Network, LLC, 144 F. Supp. 2d 784 (W.D. Ky. 2001). · cites it 5× “In spite of KUTSA’s passage over ten years ago, no Kentucky court has published a decision interpreting or applying the law.”
Fastenal Co. v. Crawford, 609 F. Supp. 2d 650 (E.D. Ky. 2009). · cites it 4× “2005) (citing Ky. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 365.880). Whether a particular type of information constitutes a trade secret is a question of fact.”
Acuity Brands, Inc. v. Bickley, 172 F. Supp. 3d 971 (E.D. Ky. 2016). · cites it 4× “Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 365.880 (4). . “ ‘Improper means’ includes theft bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Alph C. Kaufman, Inc. v. Cornerstone Indus. Corp., 540 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “KRS 365.880 et seq . They argue the trade secrets identified by Cornerstone-bid sheet templates and information regarding specific bids-do not constitute "trade secrets" under KRS 365.”
Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2004). “KRS 365.880 — .900. 42 . Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.”
Van Winkle v. HM Ins. Grp., Inc., 72 F. Supp. 3d 723 (E.D. Ky. 2014). · cites it 4× “2d at 890 (citing Ky.Rev.Stat. § 365.880). Van Winkle admits taking four boxes of documents from her office and storing them in her garage following her termination.”
Spectrum Scan, LLC v. Agm California, 519 F. Supp. 2d 655 (W.D. Ky. 2007). · cites it 2× “Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 365.880 et. seq. KUTSA establishes a statutory scheme governing the definition, protection, and penalties for the misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Evans v. Gen. Motors Corp., 893 A.2d 371 (Conn. 2006). “(1994); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 365.880 et seq. (LexisNexis 2002); La.”
Papa John's Int'l, Inc. v. Dynamic Pizza, Inc., 317 F. Supp. 2d 740 (W.D. Ky. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 106 , and misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the Kentucky Uniform Trade Secrets Act, KRS § 365.880, because Defendants continued to use trademarks, trade secrets, and copyright materials, while refusing to comply with the reporting, payment, and other…”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.880(1) — 1 case
Auto Channel, Inc. v. Speed Vision Network, LLC, 144 F. Supp. 2d 784 (W.D. Ky. 2001). “In spite of KUTSA’s passage over ten years ago, no Kentucky court has published a decision interpreting or applying the law.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.880(2) — 5 cases
BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 2d 880 (E.D. Ky. 2003). “PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 4 Plaintiffs’ third cause of action amounts to a suit under the Kentucky *890 Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“KUTSA”), KRS § 365.880 et seq. 5 “In order to prevail on a breach of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim, Plaintiffs must present evidence…”
Veritiv Operating Co. v. Phoenix Paper Wickliffe, LLC (W.D. Ky. 2021).
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hamm (E.D. Ky. 2020).
Pinkerton Tobacco Co., LP v. Kretek Int'l, Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2020).
Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. (6th Cir. 2022).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.880(2)(a) — 3 cases
Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016). “9, 2015) (holding that plaintiffs client files, client list, and employee files were trade secrets where they were kept under “double lock and key” and confidentiality agreements specifically required employees not to take or reveal such information upon termination of their…”
Pinkerton Tobacco Co., LP v. Kretek Int'l, Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2020).
Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 513 (W.D. Ky. 2015).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.880(2)(b) — 1 case
BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 2d 880 (E.D. Ky. 2003). “PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 4 Plaintiffs’ third cause of action amounts to a suit under the Kentucky *890 Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“KUTSA”), KRS § 365.880 et seq. 5 “In order to prevail on a breach of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim, Plaintiffs must present evidence…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.880(2)(b)(2)(c) — 2 cases
McHutchison, Inc. v. Eason Horticultural Resources, Inc. (E.D. Ky. 2021).
Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 513 (W.D. Ky. 2015).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.880(3) — 1 case
AWP, Inc. v. Safe Zone Servs., LLC (W.D. Ky. 2022).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.880(4) — 15 cases
BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 2d 880 (E.D. Ky. 2003). “PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 4 Plaintiffs’ third cause of action amounts to a suit under the Kentucky *890 Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“KUTSA”), KRS § 365.880 et seq. 5 “In order to prevail on a breach of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim, Plaintiffs must present evidence…”
Insight Kentucky Partners II, L.P. v. Preferred Auto. Servs., Inc., 514 S.W.3d 537 (Ky. Ct. App. 2016). “CROSS-APPEAL In its cross-appeal, Preferred first argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion to amend its complaint to add claim for a violation of the Kentucky Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“KUTSA”), KRS 365.880 et seq. Preferred contends that in denying the motion,…”
Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016). “9, 2015) (holding that plaintiffs client files, client list, and employee files were trade secrets where they were kept under “double lock and key” and confidentiality agreements specifically required employees not to take or reveal such information upon termination of their…”
Auto Channel, Inc. v. Speed Vision Network, LLC, 144 F. Supp. 2d 784 (W.D. Ky. 2001). “In spite of KUTSA’s passage over ten years ago, no Kentucky court has published a decision interpreting or applying the law.”
Alph C. Kaufman, Inc. v. Cornerstone Indus. Corp., 540 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. Ct. App. 2017). “KRS 365.880 et seq . They argue the trade secrets identified by Cornerstone-bid sheet templates and information regarding specific bids-do not constitute "trade secrets" under KRS 365.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.880(4)(a) — 4 cases
Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016). “9, 2015) (holding that plaintiffs client files, client list, and employee files were trade secrets where they were kept under “double lock and key” and confidentiality agreements specifically required employees not to take or reveal such information upon termination of their…”
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hamm (E.D. Ky. 2020).
CellMark, Inc. v. Robert Webster, et al. (E.D. Ky. 2026).
Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. (6th Cir. 2022).
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.880(4)(b) — 1 case
BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 274 F. Supp. 2d 880 (E.D. Ky. 2003). “PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 4 Plaintiffs’ third cause of action amounts to a suit under the Kentucky *890 Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“KUTSA”), KRS § 365.880 et seq. 5 “In order to prevail on a breach of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim, Plaintiffs must present evidence…”
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.