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

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884 (2026)

Damages

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

(1) 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 shall be entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. Damages may 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.

(2) If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (1). Effective: July 13, 1990 History: Created 1990 Ky. Acts ch. 300, sec. 3, effective July 13, 1990.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016). · cites it 4× “Accordingly, Smart Beverage alleges that it is entitled to recover damages under § 2 of the UTSA, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884, as measured by profits lost from its inability to continue to distribute twistee shots to its former customers, along with damages for unjust enrichment…”
Acuity Brands, Inc. v. Bickley, 172 F. Supp. 3d 971 (E.D. Ky. 2016). · cites it 2× “Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 365.884 . The Act defines “misappropriation” as: (a) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret 25 was acquired by improper means; 26 or (b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another…”
BCE Emergis Corp. v. Cmty. Health Solutions of Am., Inc., 148 F. App'x 204 (5th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “” Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 365.884. The jury did not find any loss here, so there could be no error.”
Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. (6th Cir. 2022). · cites it 4× “” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884. And applying Kentucky law, “[o]ur goal in construing each statute is to give effect to its plain meaning and unambiguous intent No.”
Webster (E.D. Ky. 2026). · cites it 2× “Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884(1). To prevail on a KUTSA claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) a trade secret exists; and (2) that a trade secret has been misappropriated.”
CellMark, Inc. v. Webster (E.D. Ky. 2025). “KRS 365.884(a). “To prevail on a KUTSA claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) a trade secret exists; and (2) that a trade secret has been misappropriated.”
Alabama Aircraft Indus. Inc v. Boeing Co., The, 133 F.4th 1238 (11th Cir. 2025). “2022); see also Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884(1) (“Dam- ages may 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.”
Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 513 (W.D. Ky. 2015). “2009) and KRS 365.884. It argues that Wingate’s opinion on damages is unreliable because (1) he accepted what he was told by Caudill Seed without independent verification; (2) the calculation of costs cover an overly expansive period of time, (3) he used a gross cost figure…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884(1) — 3 cases
Webster (E.D. Ky. 2026). “Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884(1). To prevail on a KUTSA claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) a trade secret exists; and (2) that a trade secret has been misappropriated.”
Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. (6th Cir. 2022). “” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884. And applying Kentucky law, “[o]ur goal in construing each statute is to give effect to its plain meaning and unambiguous intent No.”
Alabama Aircraft Indus. Inc v. Boeing Co., The, 133 F.4th 1238 (11th Cir. 2025). “2022); see also Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884(1) (“Dam- ages may 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.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884(2) — 2 cases
Smart & Assocs., LLC v. Indep. Liquor (NZ) Ltd., 226 F. Supp. 3d 828 (W.D. Ky. 2016). “Accordingly, Smart Beverage alleges that it is entitled to recover damages under § 2 of the UTSA, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884, as measured by profits lost from its inability to continue to distribute twistee shots to its former customers, along with damages for unjust enrichment…”
Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. (6th Cir. 2022). “” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884. And applying Kentucky law, “[o]ur goal in construing each statute is to give effect to its plain meaning and unambiguous intent No.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 365.884(a) — 1 case
CellMark, Inc. v. Webster (E.D. Ky. 2025). “KRS 365.884(a). “To prevail on a KUTSA claim, a plaintiff must show that: (1) a trade secret exists; and (2) that a trade secret has been misappropriated.”
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.