(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 in a civil action is 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 that is equitable under the circumstances considering the loss to the complainant, the benefit to the misappropriator, or both, for a misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret.
(B) If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award punitive or exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding three times any award made under division (A) of this section.
Phoenix Lighting Grp., LLC v. Genlyte Thomas Grp., LLC, 2018-Ohio-2393. · cites it 13ד”) {¶82} Accordingly, we conclude that damages relating to a claim for civil conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets are governed by OUTSA and, thus, the punitive damages cap in R.C. 1333.63 is applicable this matter. {¶83} Therefore, Phoenix’s second assignment of error is…”
Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Equip. & Mfg., Inc., 805 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 4דOhio Rev. Code Ann. § 1333.63 . The UTSA commentary notes that “recovery of both a complainant’s actual losses and a misappropriator’s unjust benefit that are caused by misappropriation” is permitted provided there is no double counting.”
Phoenix Lighting Grp., L.L.C. v. Genlyte Thomas Grp., L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-5729, 260 N.E.3d 393. · cites it 5ד{¶ 21} In this case, there were two superior-court orders: (1) the Ninth District’s decision in Phoenix I, reversing the trial court’s judgment as it pertained to the punitive-damages cap for the claim of civil conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets and remanding the matter…”
Jacked Up, L.L.C. v. Sara Lee Corp., 854 F.3d 797 (5th Cir. 2017). “” Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.63. Misappropriation is defined, among other things, as “[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,” Ohio Rev.”
Mid-Michigan Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 416 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2ד” Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.63(A). The district court instructed the jury in a manner consistent with these principles, to wit: “In determining which method to use to calculate [MMCS’s] compensatory damages, if you determine that [MMCS’s] lost profits and MGI’s unjust enrichment are…”
Mar Oil Co. v. Korpan, 973 F. Supp. 2d 775 (N.D. Ohio 2013). · cites it 2דIn lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty that is equitable under the circumstances considering the loss to the complainant, the benefit to the misappropriator, or…”
Boehm v. Black Diamond Casino Events, LLC, 2018-Ohio-2379, 116 N.E.3d 704. · cites it 2דMisappropriations Occurred, but the Trial Court Was Correct Not To Afford Additional Relief beyond the Return of the Trade Secrets {¶ 9} In its third assignment of error, Black Diamond claims that the trial court erred in finding that no misappropriation of trade secrets…”
N. Chem. Blending Corp. v. Strib Indus., Inc., 2018-Ohio-3364. · cites it 2ד{¶68} R.C. 1333.63(B) defines “misappropriation” as any of the following: (1) 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; (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without the…”
Alegre, Inc. v. Hyde Component Sales, Inc., 2022-Ohio-542. · cites it 6דUnder R.C. 1333.63(A), the jury in that case awarded Allied unjust enrichment damages in excess of three million dollars but, under R.”
State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ., 721 N.E.2d 1044 (Ohio 2000). “62, a civil action for compensatory and punitive damages, R.C. 1333.63, attorney fees, R.C. 1333.64, and court preservation of trade secrets in a civil action under the Act, R.”
Phoenix Lighting Grp., L.L.C. v. Genlyte Thomas Grp., L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-1079. · cites it 2ד00 in punitive damages pursuant to R.C. 1333.63(B). With respect to attorney fees, and the lower court’s lodestar enhancement, this Court determined that it could not “say that the trial court abused its discretion in applying a multiplier of two to the lodestar amount.”
Phoenix Lighting Grp., LLC v. Genlyte Thomas Grp., LLC, 2018-Ohio-2393. “”) {¶82} Accordingly, we conclude that damages relating to a claim for civil conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets are governed by OUTSA and, thus, the punitive damages cap in R.C. 1333.63 is applicable this matter. {¶83} Therefore, Phoenix’s second assignment of error is…”
Mar Oil Co. v. Korpan, 973 F. Supp. 2d 775 (N.D. Ohio 2013). “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 that is equitable under the circumstances considering the loss to the complainant, the benefit to the misappropriator, or…”
Mid-Michigan Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 416 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2005). “” Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.63(A). The district court instructed the jury in a manner consistent with these principles, to wit: “In determining which method to use to calculate [MMCS’s] compensatory damages, if you determine that [MMCS’s] lost profits and MGI’s unjust enrichment are…”
Phoenix Lighting Grp., LLC v. Genlyte Thomas Grp., LLC, 2018-Ohio-2393. “”) {¶82} Accordingly, we conclude that damages relating to a claim for civil conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets are governed by OUTSA and, thus, the punitive damages cap in R.C. 1333.63 is applicable this matter. {¶83} Therefore, Phoenix’s second assignment of error is…”
Phoenix Lighting Grp., L.L.C. v. Genlyte Thomas Grp., L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-5729, 260 N.E.3d 393. “{¶ 21} In this case, there were two superior-court orders: (1) the Ninth District’s decision in Phoenix I, reversing the trial court’s judgment as it pertained to the punitive-damages cap for the claim of civil conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets and remanding the matter…”
Mid-Michigan Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 416 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2005). “” Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.63(A). The district court instructed the jury in a manner consistent with these principles, to wit: “In determining which method to use to calculate [MMCS’s] compensatory damages, if you determine that [MMCS’s] lost profits and MGI’s unjust enrichment are…”
Alegre, Inc. v. Hyde Component Sales, Inc., 2022-Ohio-542. “Under R.C. 1333.63(A), the jury in that case awarded Allied unjust enrichment damages in excess of three million dollars but, under R.”
Phoenix Lighting Grp., L.L.C. v. Genlyte Thomas Grp., L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-1079. “00 in punitive damages pursuant to R.C. 1333.63(B). With respect to attorney fees, and the lower court’s lodestar enhancement, this Court determined that it could not “say that the trial court abused its discretion in applying a multiplier of two to the lodestar amount.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.63(D): 1 case
N. Chem. Blending Corp. v. Strib Indus., Inc., 2018-Ohio-3364. “{¶68} R.C. 1333.63(B) defines “misappropriation” as any of the following: (1) 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; (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without the…”
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.