646.463
Enjoining misappropriation; payment of royalties; affirmative acts. (1) Actual or threatened
misappropriation may be temporarily, preliminarily or permanently enjoined.
Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be vacated when the trade
secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an additional
reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that
otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.
(2) In
exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use upon payment
of a reasonable royalty for the period of time for which use could have been
prohibited. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, a
material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or
reason to know of the misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction
inequitable.
(3) In
appropriate circumstances, the court may order affirmative acts to protect a
trade secret. [1987 c.537 §3]
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Sports Mgmt. News, Inc. v. Nachtigal, 921 P.2d 1304 (Or. 1996).
· cites it 6× “The primary focus of ORS 646.463 is to define the injunctive relief that is ultimately available to remedy a violation of the Act, a stage that this case, not yet near its end, has not reached.”
Peterson Mach. Co. v. May, 496 P.3d 672 (Or. Ct. App. 2021).
“465; ORS 646.463. As relevant here, “misappropriation” is defined in the UTSA to mean: Cite as 313 Or App 454 (2021) 463 “(d) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another with- out express or implied consent by a person, who at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason…”
Phoseon Tech., Inc. v. Heathcote (D. Or. 2019).
· cites it 2× “” Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.463 (1). Phoseon supports its assertion of threatened misappropriation by invoking the “inevitable disclosure” doctrine.”
Isosceles Holdings, LLC v. All. Env't Grp. LLC (D. Or. 2023).
· cites it 2× “§ 1836 (b)(3)(A)(i); Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.463 (1). A violation under either statute is shown if (1) the information was in fact a trade secret, (2) plaintiff took reasonable measures to maintain the secrecy of the information, and (3) defendant's conduct constitutes…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.463(1) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Sports Mgmt. News, Inc. v. Nachtigal, 921 P.2d 1304 (Or. 1996).
“The primary focus of ORS 646.463 is to define the injunctive relief that is ultimately available to remedy a violation of the Act, a stage that this case, not yet near its end, has not reached.”
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.