(A) Except as provided in division (B) of this section, sections 1333.61 to 1333.69 of the Revised Code displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other laws of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.
(B) Sections 1333.61 to 1333.69 of the Revised Code do not affect any of the following:
(1) Contractual remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation of a trade secret;
(2) Other civil remedies that are not based on misappropriation of a trade secret;
(3) Criminal remedies, including those in other sections of this chapter, whether or not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.
Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Equip. & Mfg., Inc., 649 F. Supp. 2d 702 (N.D. Ohio 2009). · cites it 16ד) Defendants claim that the UTSA, as adopted by Ohio (Ohio Rev.Code § 1333.67), preempts Allied’s common-law claims because those claims “ ‘are based entirely on factual allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Off. Depot, Inc. v. Impact Off. Prods., LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ohio 2011). · cites it 14ד2010) (finding O.R.C. § 1333.67(A) “has been interpreted to bar claims that are based solely on allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets or other confidential information” and dismissing claims based only on alleged misappropriation and misuses of confidential and…”
Glasstech, Inc. v. TGL Tempering Sys., Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 722 (N.D. Ohio 1999). · cites it 9דOhio Rev.Code § 1333.67 specifically preempts common law claims, with three articulated exceptions.”
Hanneman Fam. Funeral Home & Crematorium v. Orians, 2023-Ohio-3687, 235 N.E.3d 361. · cites it 11דPreemption {¶ 18} R.C. 1333.67 preempts tort claims that are based on the misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Thermodyn Corp. v. 3M Co., 593 F. Supp. 2d 972 (N.D. Ohio 2008). · cites it 4דR.C. § 1333.67. The test to determine whether a state law claim is displaced by OUTSA is to determine whether “the claims are no more than a restatement of the same operative facts” that formed the basis of the plaintiffs statutory claim for trade secret misappropriation.”
Curcio Webb LLC v. Nat'l Benefit Programs Agency, Inc., 367 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (S.D. Ohio 2005). · cites it 6ד69 of the Revised Code do not affect any of the following: (1) Contractual remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation of a trade secret; (2) Other civil remedies that are not based on misappropriation of a trade secret; (3) Criminal remedies, including those in other…”
Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting Prods., Inc., 933 F. Supp. 2d 974 (S.D. Ohio 2013). · cites it 4ד” Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.67. This Court has recognized that such displacement applies to “all claims based on misappropriation of information even if that information does-not rise to the level of a ‘trade secret.”
Rogers Indus. Prods. Inc. v. HF Rubber Mach., Inc., 936 N.E.2d 122 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2010). · cites it 3ד{¶ 29} The HF defendants moved for summary judgment on Rogers’s additional claims, arguing that they were barred by R.C. 1333.67. R.C. 1333.67(A) provides that Ohio’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act “displace[s] conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other laws of this state providing…”
Sal's Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Bers Acquisition Co., 2022-Ohio-1756, 192 N.E.3d 537. · cites it 3דAdditionally, section R.C. 1333.67(A) states that OUTSA displaces “conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other laws of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Tomaydo-Tomahhdo, L.L.C. v. Vozary, 2017-Ohio-4292, 82 N.E.3d 1180. · cites it 2דCivil Conspiracy, Tortious Interference, Unfair Competition, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty {¶32} The court found that Tomaydo-Tomahhdo’s claims for civil conspiracy, tortious interference, unfair competition, and breach of fiduciary duty were subsumed within its misappropriation…”
Miami Valley Mobile Health Servs., Inc. v. ExamOne Worldwide, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 925 (S.D. Ohio 2012). “” Ohio Revised Code § 1333.67(A); 12 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5308. This statute “has been interpreted to bar claims which are based entirely on factual allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Yoder, 950 F. Supp. 1348 (S.D. Ohio 1997). · cites it 4דSection 1333.67 of the Ohio Trade Secrets Act specifically states that conflicting tort, restitutionary and other civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret are displaced by the Act.”
Off. Depot, Inc. v. Impact Off. Prods., LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ohio 2011). “2010) (finding O.R.C. § 1333.67(A) “has been interpreted to bar claims that are based solely on allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets or other confidential information” and dismissing claims based only on alleged misappropriation and misuses of confidential and…”
Rogers Indus. Prods. Inc. v. HF Rubber Mach., Inc., 936 N.E.2d 122 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2010). “{¶ 29} The HF defendants moved for summary judgment on Rogers’s additional claims, arguing that they were barred by R.C. 1333.67. R.C. 1333.67(A) provides that Ohio’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act “displace[s] conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other laws of this state providing…”
Miami Valley Mobile Health Servs., Inc. v. ExamOne Worldwide, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 925 (S.D. Ohio 2012). “” Ohio Revised Code § 1333.67(A); 12 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5308. This statute “has been interpreted to bar claims which are based entirely on factual allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Sal's Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Bers Acquisition Co., 2022-Ohio-1756, 192 N.E.3d 537. “Additionally, section R.C. 1333.67(A) states that OUTSA displaces “conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other laws of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting Prods., Inc., 933 F. Supp. 2d 974 (S.D. Ohio 2013). “” Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.67. This Court has recognized that such displacement applies to “all claims based on misappropriation of information even if that information does-not rise to the level of a ‘trade secret.”
Off. Depot, Inc. v. Impact Off. Prods., LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ohio 2011). “2010) (finding O.R.C. § 1333.67(A) “has been interpreted to bar claims that are based solely on allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets or other confidential information” and dismissing claims based only on alleged misappropriation and misuses of confidential and…”
Glasstech, Inc. v. TGL Tempering Sys., Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 722 (N.D. Ohio 1999). “Ohio Rev.Code § 1333.67 specifically preempts common law claims, with three articulated exceptions.”
Glasstech, Inc. v. TGL Tempering Sys., Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 722 (N.D. Ohio 1999). “Ohio Rev.Code § 1333.67 specifically preempts common law claims, with three articulated exceptions.”
Tomaydo-Tomahhdo, L.L.C. v. Vozary, 2017-Ohio-4292, 82 N.E.3d 1180. “Civil Conspiracy, Tortious Interference, Unfair Competition, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty {¶32} The court found that Tomaydo-Tomahhdo’s claims for civil conspiracy, tortious interference, unfair competition, and breach of fiduciary duty were subsumed within its misappropriation…”
Off. Depot, Inc. v. Impact Off. Prods., LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ohio 2011). “2010) (finding O.R.C. § 1333.67(A) “has been interpreted to bar claims that are based solely on allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets or other confidential information” and dismissing claims based only on alleged misappropriation and misuses of confidential and…”
Sal's Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Bers Acquisition Co., 2022-Ohio-1756, 192 N.E.3d 537. “Additionally, section R.C. 1333.67(A) states that OUTSA displaces “conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other laws of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.”
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.