Utah Code » Title 13, Chapter 24 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act
Utah Code

Utah Code § 13-24-3 (2026)

Injunctive relief

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated 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.
In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than 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 misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable.
In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: ClearOne Commc'ns, Inc. v. Chiang, 608 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (D. Utah 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
ClearOne Commc'ns, Inc. v. Chiang, 608 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (D. Utah 2009). · cites it 5× “Utah Code Ann. § 13-24-3 (1). Furthermore, “[i]n appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.”
ClearOne Commc'ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2011). “” Utah Code Ann. § 13-24-3 (1). Finally, the Appellants’ post-trial contemptuous conduct clearly supports the unlimited duration of the district court’s injunction.”
Clearone Commc'ns, Inc. v. Chiang, 617 F. App'x 862 (10th Cir. 2015). “Bowers also renews his request to terminate the injunction pursuant to Utah Code § 13-24-3. He raised this same argument in February 2011, but the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear it because the injunction was then being reviewed on appeal.”
Gen. Water Tech. v. Van Zweden, 2022 UT App 90 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Utah Code Ann. § 13-24-3 (1) (LexisNexis 2013).”
Reaction Washer v. IDEPA (D. Utah 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 1836 (b)(1) and Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-24-3 , 4 with respect to the ‘676 Application.”
Crumbl v. Dirty Dough (D. Utah 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 1836 (b)(3)(A)(i); Utah Code § 13-24-3(1). The federal statute defines “trade secret” to include: all forms and types of financial, business .”
Moxie Pest Control (Utah) v. Nielsen (10th Cir. 2026). “§ 1836 (b)(3); accord Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-24-3 (1), -4(1). Qualifying damages, in turn, may include “actual loss” and “unjust enrichment.”
ClearOne Commc'ns,Inc. v. Yang (10th Cir. 2011). “” Utah Code Ann. § 13-24-3 (1). Finally, the Appellants’ post-trial contemptuous conduct clearly supports the unlimited duration of the district court’s injunction.”
— Utah Code § 13-24-3(1) — 1 case
Crumbl v. Dirty Dough (D. Utah 2023). “§ 1836 (b)(3)(A)(i); Utah Code § 13-24-3(1). The federal statute defines “trade secret” to include: all forms and types of financial, business .”
— Utah Code § 13-24-3(3) — 1 case
ClearOne Commc'ns, Inc. v. Chiang, 608 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (D. Utah 2009). “Utah Code Ann. § 13-24-3 (1). Furthermore, “[i]n appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.”
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.