646.461
Definitions for ORS 646.461 to 646.475. As used in ORS 646.461 to 646.475, unless the context
otherwise requires:
(1) “Improper
means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a
breach of a duty to maintain secrecy or espionage through electronic or other
means. Reverse engineering and independent development alone shall not be
considered improper means.
(2) “Misappropriation”
means:
(a) 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;
(b) Disclosure or
use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person
who used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret;
(c) Disclosure or
use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person
who, before a material change of position, knew or had reason to know that it
was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake;
or
(d) Disclosure or
use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a
person, who at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that
the knowledge of the trade secret was:
(A) Derived from
or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
(B) Acquired
under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its
use; or
(C) Derived from
or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain
its secrecy or limit its use.
(3) “Person”
means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust,
partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision
or agency or any other legal or commercial entity.
(4) “Trade secret”
means information, including a drawing, cost data, customer list, formula,
pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process that:
(a) Derives
independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known
to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its
disclosure or use; and
(b) Is the
subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its
secrecy. [1987 c.537 §2]
Notes of Decisions
Pelican Bay Forest Prods., Inc. v. W. Timber Prods., Inc., 443 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 36× “They argued, essentially, that, because no trade secrets were at issue, there could be no unlawful misappropriation in violation of ORS 646.461 : "Because plaintiff has no evidence anything is a trade secret, the Western Timber defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”
Peterson Mach. Co. v. May, 496 P.3d 672 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 17× “461(4).” Plaintiff also argues that it “presented sufficient evidence to create a factual issue to permit a reasonable factfinder to find that defendants misappropriated its confidential customer information within the meaning of ORS 646.”
State Ex Rel. Sports Mgmt. News, Inc. v. Nachtigal, 921 P.2d 1304 (Or. 1996).
· cites it 10× “(“adidas”), 2 brought an action in Washington County Circuit Court under the Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act, ORS 646.461 to 646.475 (the Act). The complaint alleged that Sports Management News, Inc.”
Pac. Kidney & Hypertension, LLC v. Kassakian, 156 F. Supp. 3d 1219 (D. Or. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Kassa-kian had access to Pacific Kidney’s “trade secrets,” as defined by ORS § 646.461, at least in the form of a confidential customer list during her employment.”
Kaib's Roving R. Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Smith, 239 P.3d 247 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 5× “Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing this action for misappropriation of trade secrets, ORS 646.461 to 646.475, breach of contract, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition.”
Vesta Corp. v. Amdocs Mgmt. Ltd., 80 F. Supp. 3d 1152 (D. Or. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Misappropriation ORS 646.461(2)(d)(b) defines “misappropriation” as “[disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person, who at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that the knowledge of the trade secret was .”
Ikon Off. Solutions, Inc. v. Am. Off. Prods., Inc., 178 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001).
“ORS 646.461. “ ‘Improper means’ includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy or espionage through electronic or other means.”
Or. Psychiatric Partners, LLP v. Henry, 429 P.3d 399 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“295(1)(c) include "trade secrets, as that term is defined in ORS 646.461"; "competitively sensitive confidential business or professional information that otherwise would not qualify as a trade secret, including product development plans, product launch plans, marketing strategy…”
One Sixty Over Ninety, LLC v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 830 S.E.2d 503 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
“473 (3) ("Notwithstanding any other provision in ORS 646.461 to 646.475, public bodies and their officers, employees and agents are immune from any claim or action for misappropriation of a trade secret that is based on the disclosure or release of information in obedience to or…”
Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd., 879 P.2d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“In particular, plaintiff relies on the Oregon Trade Secrets Act, ORS 646.461(4), and the Federal Antitrust Improvements Act, 18 USC § 1905 , which governs disclosure of confidential information by officials of the United States government.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.461(2) — 5 cases
Pelican Bay Forest Prods., Inc. v. W. Timber Prods., Inc., 443 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“They argued, essentially, that, because no trade secrets were at issue, there could be no unlawful misappropriation in violation of ORS 646.461 : "Because plaintiff has no evidence anything is a trade secret, the Western Timber defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”
Peterson Mach. Co. v. May, 496 P.3d 672 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“461(4).” Plaintiff also argues that it “presented sufficient evidence to create a factual issue to permit a reasonable factfinder to find that defendants misappropriated its confidential customer information within the meaning of ORS 646.”
State Ex Rel. Sports Mgmt. News, Inc. v. Nachtigal, 921 P.2d 1304 (Or. 1996).
“(“adidas”), 2 brought an action in Washington County Circuit Court under the Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act, ORS 646.461 to 646.475 (the Act). The complaint alleged that Sports Management News, Inc.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.461(2)(d) — 2 cases
Pelican Bay Forest Prods., Inc. v. W. Timber Prods., Inc., 443 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“They argued, essentially, that, because no trade secrets were at issue, there could be no unlawful misappropriation in violation of ORS 646.461 : "Because plaintiff has no evidence anything is a trade secret, the Western Timber defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.461(2)(d)(B) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.461(2)(d)(C) — 3 cases
Pelican Bay Forest Prods., Inc. v. W. Timber Prods., Inc., 443 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“They argued, essentially, that, because no trade secrets were at issue, there could be no unlawful misappropriation in violation of ORS 646.461 : "Because plaintiff has no evidence anything is a trade secret, the Western Timber defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”
Peterson Mach. Co. v. May, 496 P.3d 672 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“461(4).” Plaintiff also argues that it “presented sufficient evidence to create a factual issue to permit a reasonable factfinder to find that defendants misappropriated its confidential customer information within the meaning of ORS 646.”
State Ex Rel. Sports Mgmt. News, Inc. v. Nachtigal, 921 P.2d 1304 (Or. 1996).
“(“adidas”), 2 brought an action in Washington County Circuit Court under the Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act, ORS 646.461 to 646.475 (the Act). The complaint alleged that Sports Management News, Inc.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.461(2)(d)(b) — 1 case
Vesta Corp. v. Amdocs Mgmt. Ltd., 80 F. Supp. 3d 1152 (D. Or. 2015).
“Misappropriation ORS 646.461(2)(d)(b) defines “misappropriation” as “[disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person, who at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that the knowledge of the trade secret was .”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.461(4) — 13 cases
Pelican Bay Forest Prods., Inc. v. W. Timber Prods., Inc., 443 P.3d 651 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“They argued, essentially, that, because no trade secrets were at issue, there could be no unlawful misappropriation in violation of ORS 646.461 : "Because plaintiff has no evidence anything is a trade secret, the Western Timber defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”
Peterson Mach. Co. v. May, 496 P.3d 672 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“461(4).” Plaintiff also argues that it “presented sufficient evidence to create a factual issue to permit a reasonable factfinder to find that defendants misappropriated its confidential customer information within the meaning of ORS 646.”
Kaib's Roving R. Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Smith, 239 P.3d 247 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing this action for misappropriation of trade secrets, ORS 646.461 to 646.475, breach of contract, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition.”
Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd., 879 P.2d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).
“In particular, plaintiff relies on the Oregon Trade Secrets Act, ORS 646.461(4), and the Federal Antitrust Improvements Act, 18 USC § 1905 , which governs disclosure of confidential information by officials of the United States government.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.461(4)(a) — 1 case
Peterson Mach. Co. v. May, 496 P.3d 672 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“461(4).” Plaintiff also argues that it “presented sufficient evidence to create a factual issue to permit a reasonable factfinder to find that defendants misappropriated its confidential customer information within the meaning of ORS 646.”
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.