Okla. Stat. » Title 78 — TRADE MARKS AND LABELS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 92 (2026)

Operation and effect of act - Exemptions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Except as provided for in subsection B of this section, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret. B. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not affect: 1. contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or 2. other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or 3. criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret. Added by Laws 1986, c. 85, § 8, eff. Nov. 1, 1986.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Gaedeke Holdings VII Ltd. v. Baker, 683 F. App'x 677 (10th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gaedeke Holdings VII Ltd. v. Baker, 683 F. App'x 677 (10th Cir. 2017). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 92 (A). Defendants argued that this statute required the district court to dismiss Gaedeke’s three common-law claims.”
Craig Neon, Inc. v. McKenzie, 25 F. App'x 750 (10th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “” Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 92 (A) & (B)(2). The Oklahoma courts have not announced a case involving preemption of a claim of fraud and deceit by the UTSA.”
Am. Biomedical Grp., Inc. v. Techtrol, Inc., 2016 OK 55 (Okla. 2016). “The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, finding that pursuant to Section 92, the Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act , 78 O.S.2011, § 92, displaced Plaintiffs' common-law claims.”
ATS Grp. LLC v. Legacy Tank & Indus. Servs. LLC (W.D. Okla. 2019). “s, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether 6 In their Reply…”
Ace Oilfield Rentals LLC v. W. Dakota & Fabrication LLC (W.D. Okla. 2021). “” Okla.Stat.tit. 78, § 92. Thus, to the extent Ace’s conversion claim seeks recovery for the misuse of trade secrets, that portion of the claim is displaced by the OUTSA.”
Credit Sage LLC v. Credit Wellness LLC (D. Wyo. 2024). “at 680 (quoting Okla. Stat. tit. 78 § 92(A)). Pave 13 of 41 The Tenth Circuit in Gaedeke concluded that ownership was not a required element under the Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act.”
I.C. Intelligence LLC v. ShowNation LLC; Yonne Tiger (N.D. Okla. 2026). “’s state-law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty are preempted by the Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which expressly preempts the use of state-law causes of action for “conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state…”
I.C. Intelligence LLC v. ShowNation LLC; Yonne Tiger (N.D. Okla. 2026). “11 at 2; Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 92 .A. I.C. responds that its state-law allegations are not based on trade secrets and are “specifically limit[ed] to non-trade secret confidential information.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 78, § 92(A) — 2 cases
ATS Grp. LLC v. Legacy Tank & Indus. Servs. LLC (W.D. Okla. 2019). “s, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether 6 In their Reply…”
Credit Sage LLC v. Credit Wellness LLC (D. Wyo. 2024). “at 680 (quoting Okla. Stat. tit. 78 § 92(A)). Pave 13 of 41 The Tenth Circuit in Gaedeke concluded that ownership was not a required element under the Oklahoma Uniform Trade Secrets Act.”
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.