An action for misappropriation shall be commenced within four years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. For the purposes of this section, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim.
New Tech. Prods. Pty, Ltd. v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., 2022 Ohio 3780 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 10דR.C. 1333.66 provides the limitations period for misappropriation actions under OUTSA and reads as follows: An action for misappropriation shall be commenced within four years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been…”
Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting Prods., Inc., 796 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 3ד” Ohio Rev.Code § 1333.66. The district court found that “the actual injury that started the clock came in August of 2004,” when Best’s founder, Alvin Katz, learned that Pace was selling to Best’s customers products that were facsimiles of Best’s wares and confronted Pace about…”
Adcor Indus., Inc. v. Bevcorp, LLC, 252 F. App'x 55 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4ד” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1333.66 . Likewise, the parties agree that the statute incorporates the discovery rule, meaning we count time from when the trade secret’s owner could have discovered the misappropriation, rather than when the wrong first occurred.”
Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting Prods., Inc., 933 F. Supp. 2d 974 (S.D. Ohio 2013). · cites it 2ד” Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.66. Accordingly, the decisive issue regarding the commencement of the statute of limitations is when the plaintiff knew or should have reasonably known when the defendant was using trade secret information in an unauthorized fashion.”
Kendall Holdings, Ltd. v. Eden Cryogenics, LLC, 521 F. App'x 453 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2ד61(A). An action must be brought “within four years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.”
Adcor Indus., Inc. v. BEVCORP, LLC, 411 F. Supp. 2d 778 (N.D. Ohio 2005). · cites it 2דO.R.C. § 1333.66. There is no dispute that this four-year statute of limitations applies to Ad-cor’s misappropriation claim.”
Richard Campfield v. Safelite Grp., Inc., 91 F.4th 401 (6th Cir. 2024). “OUTSA Claim OUTSA has a four-year statute of limitations that begins to run “after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.”
Cincom Sys., Inc. v. LABWARE, INC. (S.D. Ohio 2024). · cites it 4ד” Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.66. This rule “requires the owner of a trade secret to conduct a timely and reasonable investigation after learning of possible misappropriation.”
B&P Littleford, LLC v. Prescott Mach., LLC (E.D. Mich. 2019). · cites it 2ד(quoting Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1333.66 ). Indeed, the Sixth Circuit restated the district court’s conclusion that “Adcor’s interpretation of the limitation statute (i.”
New Tech. Prods. Pty, Ltd. v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., 2022 Ohio 3780 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “R.C. 1333.66 provides the limitations period for misappropriation actions under OUTSA and reads as follows: An action for misappropriation shall be commenced within four years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been…”
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.