Opinion ID: 3151616
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: OUTSA Statute of Limitations

Text: The OUTSA contains a four-year statute of limitations which begins to run when “the misappropriation [of the trade secret] is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.” Ohio Rev. Code. Ann. § 1333.66. Before the UTSA, courts split on how to apply a statute of limitations in trade secrets claims, with some courts applying a “continuing wrong” approach, and others a “single claim” approach. The UTSA “rejects a continuing wrong approach to the statute of limitations . . . . If objectively reasonable notice of misappropriation exists, three years is sufficient time to vindicate one’s legal rights.” UTSA § 6 cmt.; see also Ohio Rev Code Ann. § 1333.66 (“For the purposes of this section, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim.”). To better understand the “single claim” approach, it is instructive to contrast it with copyright and patent protections, which apply a “continuing wrong” approach, also known as a “separate-accrual” rule, to infringement suits. A claim ordinarily accrues when a plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action. In other words, the limitations period generally begins to run at the point when the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief. A copyright claim thus arises or accrues when an infringing act occurs. It is widely recognized that the separate-accrual rule attends the copyright statute of limitations. Under that rule, when a defendant commits successive violations, the statute of limitations runs separately from each violation. Each time an infringing work is reproduced or distributed, the infringer commits a new wrong. Each wrong gives rise to a discrete claim that accrues at the time the wrong occurs. In short, each infringing act starts a new limitations period. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962, 1969 (2014) (citations omitted); see also 17 U.S.C. § 507 (“No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.”). Patent law operates in a similar fashion, with a six-year limitations period. See A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 2031 (Fed Cir. 1992) (en banc) (noting “each act of [patent] infringement is deemed a separate claim”); 35 U.S.C. § 286 (“[N]o recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.”). No. 14-3563 Allied Erecting, et al. v. Genesis Attachments, et al. Page 5 Trade secret law is different, and states that have adopted the UTSA consistently apply a single claim theory to misappropriations of trade secrets. See, e.g., Adcor Indus., Inc. v. Bevcorp, LLC, 252 F. App’x 55, 62 (6th Cir. 2007) (noting that “the Ohio statute clearly forecloses [a multiple misappropriation] argument”); Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. AvantA Corp., 57 P.3d 647, 651 (Cal. 2002) (“[A] claim for misappropriation of a trade secret arises for a given plaintiff against a given defendant only once, at the time of the initial misappropriation, subject to the discovery rule . . . .”); Manturuk v. Gen. Motors Corp., No. 211722, 2000 WL 33416876, at  (Mich. Ct. App. July 14, 2000) (per curium) (“[T]he misappropriation of trade secrets is not a continuing offense. The wrong occurs at the time of the improper acquisition.”) (citations and quotations omitted).