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

Heading: OUTSA Remedies

Text: It is important to note the variety of remedies that may be available to a successful trade secret misappropriation plaintiff before turning to the details of the dispute between Allied and Genesis. First, “Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. . . . [A]n injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, [except] the injunction shall be continued for a reasonable time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.” UTSA § 2; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1333.62. “[A]n injunction should last for as long as is necessary, but no longer than is necessary, to eliminate the commercial advantage or ‘lead time’ with respect to good faith competitors that a person has obtained through misappropriation . . . .” UTSA § 2 cmt. “It would be anti-competitive to continue to restrain [a misappropriator of a trade secret] after any lead time . . . derived from misappropriation had been removed.” Id. Injunctive relief is not designed to be punitive, but rather “to place the injured party in the position that he would have been in had the misappropriation not taken place.” Valco Cincinnati, Inc. v. N & D Machining Serv., Inc., 492 N.E.2d 814, 820 (Ohio 1986); see also 88 Ohio Jur. 3d Trade Secrets § 25. Second, as to monetary damages: [A] complainant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust No. 14-3563 Allied Erecting, et al. v. Genesis Attachments, et al. Page 6 enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator’s unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret. If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding three times2 any award made [above]. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1333.63. The UTSA commentary notes that “recovery of both a complainant’s actual losses and a misappropriator’s unjust benefit that are caused by misappropriation” is permitted provided there is no double counting. UTSA § 3 cmt. (emphasis added); see also MAR Oil Co. v. Korpan, 973 F. Supp. 2d 775, 781-82 (N.D. Ohio 2013) (“Ohio law treats actual loss and unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation as two distinct theories of recovery.”). Where damages are otherwise difficult to measure, “the value of the secret” to the misappropriating party can “be a proper yardstick for a damage award.” MAR Oil Co., 973 F. Supp. 2d at 782.