(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, unless the court finds that termination of the injunction is likely to provide a person who committed an actual or threatened misappropriation with a resulting commercial advantage, in which case the injunction shall be continued for an additional reasonable 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 time for which use could have been prohibited. Exceptional circumstances include 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Hydrofarm, Inc. v. Orendorff, 905 N.E.2d 658 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).
Hydrofarm, Inc. v. Orendorff, 905 N.E.2d 658 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6דInstead, it left the law substantially intact; that is, employers or employees are free to, and frequently do, enter into noncompetition agreements, while the state has an interest in promoting morality in business affairs and innovation.”
Prosonic Corp. v. Stafford, 539 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Ohio 2008). · cites it 5דO.R.C. § 1333.62. A trade secret is something that encompasses both of the following: “(1) it 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…”
Procter Gamble Co. v. Stoneham, 747 N.E.2d 268 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2דThe complaint also alleged that Stoneham had misappropriated trade secrets in violation of R.C. 1333.62. P&G requested monetary damages, as well as a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction.”
Kendall Holdings, Ltd. v. Eden Cryogenics LLC, 630 F. Supp. 2d 853 (S.D. Ohio 2008). · cites it 2דA “trade secret” is: information, including the whole or any portion or phase of any scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or improvement, or any business information or plans,…”
Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Equip. & Mfg., Inc., 805 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2ד” UTSA § 2; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1333.62 . “[A]n injunction should last for as long as is necessary, but no longer than is necessary, to eliminate the commercial advantage or ‘lead time’ with respect to good faith competitors that a person has obtained through misappropriation .”
Patio Enclosures, Inc. v. Herbst, 39 F. App'x 964 (6th Cir. 2002). “Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1333.62 (2002). The plaintiffs pricing and engineering of its sunrooms constitute trade secrets under Ohio’s definition of that term.”
Dexxon Digit. Storage, Inc. v. Haenszel, 832 N.E.2d 62 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2דR.C. 1333.62(A) provides that actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret may be enjoined.”
Curcio Webb LLC v. Nat'l Benefit Programs Agency, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (S.D. Ohio 2005). · cites it 2ד§ 1125 (a)); (3) misappropriation of trade secrets under Ohio Rev.Code § 1333.62 and common law; and (4) unfair competition and misappropriation of proprietary and confidential business information in violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act of 1946, (codified as amended at 15 U.”
Avery Dennison Corp. v. Kitsonas, 118 F. Supp. 2d 848 (S.D. Ohio 2000). · cites it 2דOhio Rev. Code § 1333.62. Ohio law further provides that: “[n]o employee of another, who in the course and within the scope of his employment receives any confidential matter or information, shall knowingly, without the consent of his employer, furnish or disclose such matter or…”
ALTA Analytics, Inc. v. Muuss, 75 F. Supp. 2d 773 (S.D. Ohio 1999). · cites it 2דOhio Rev.Code § 1333.62. Ohio law also provides that “[n]o employee of another, who in the course and within the scope of his employment receives any confidential matter or information, shall knowingly, without the consent of his employer, furnish or disclose such matter or…”
One Lifestyle, Ltd. v. Mohiuddin, 2021 Ohio 1594 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2דamended complaint seeks equitable relief to prevent the disclosure of Lifestyle's confidential information to appellant's new employer, including specific performance as a remedy for appellant's breach of the Confidentiality Agreement and an Equity Appreciation Plan Agreement,…”
State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 721 N.E.2d 1044 (Ohio 2000). “64, and court preservation of trade secrets in a civil action under the Act, R.C. 1333.65. The Act also retained criminal remedies, whether or not based on the misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Kendall Holdings, Ltd. v. Eden Cryogenics LLC, 630 F. Supp. 2d 853 (S.D. Ohio 2008). “A “trade secret” is: information, including the whole or any portion or phase of any scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or improvement, or any business information or plans,…”
Hydrofarm, Inc. v. Orendorff, 905 N.E.2d 658 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). “Instead, it left the law substantially intact; that is, employers or employees are free to, and frequently do, enter into noncompetition agreements, while the state has an interest in promoting morality in business affairs and innovation.”
Dexxon Digit. Storage, Inc. v. Haenszel, 832 N.E.2d 62 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “R.C. 1333.62(A) provides that actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret may be enjoined.”
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.