Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 365.880

Section 365.880(4)(b) requires reasonable efforts under the circumstances to maintain a trade secret’s secrecy, and section 365.880(2)(b) does not treat use as misappropriation when the trade secret was used with express or implied consent.

BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. · filed 2003-07-31(4)(b); (2)(b)

For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that (1) because Plaintiffs did not take reasonable efforts under the circumstances to maintain the subject information’s secrecy, the subject information does not qualify as a “trade secret” under KRS § 365.880(4)(b); and (2) even assuming, arguendo, that the subject information qualifies as a trade secret under the statute, that information was not misappropriated.

Section 365.880 denies trade-secret status to information that is generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means to people who could obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.

Atc Distribution Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc. · filed 2005-03-30

The district court did grant summary judgment in favor of Appellees on the claim that they misappropriated ATC's customer lists, on the ground that those lists were not trade secrets under Kentucky law. We agree with the district court. ... The Kentucky Act, like other statutes based on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, defines a trade secret as information that, among other things, derives economic value "from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can readily obtain economic value from its disclosure or use." ... As the district court found, ATC can point to no evidence that the identities of transmission parts customers contained on its customer list was obtained through great effort or expense, or that the names on the list were not discoverable from a telephone book or similar legitimate source. Even the name of the person at each transmission shop responsible for buying parts, to which ATC ascribes great importance, can be ascertained simply by calling each shop and asking.

Subsection (2) provides alternative definitions of misappropriation based on use or disclosure, and the use formulation applies when the claimed harm is the use of trade-secret information.

Brake Parts, Inc. v. Lewis · filed 2011-08-11(2)

The relevant Kentucky law offers alternate definitions of “misappropriation” involving either “use” or “disclosure.” See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 365.880(2). Because BPI sought to enjoin Satisfied’s alleged use of its formulations, the district court rightly employed the first iteration.

Section 365.880(4) defines a trade secret as information with independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.

Insight Kentucky Partners II, L.P. v. Preferred Automotive Services, Inc. · filed 2016-06-10(4)

We are of the opinion that even if the factual allegations of the amended claim were taken as true, Preferred would not have been entitled to any relief for a violation of the KUTSA because the information it alleges Key to have acquired and misappropriated does not satisfy the definition of a trade secret under KRS 365.880(4). We conclude that the trial court properly found that it would have been futile for Preferred to amend its complaint and, as such, denied the motion accordingly.

Section 365.880(4) defines a trade secret as information with independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means and that is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

Alph C. Kaufman, Inc. v. Cornerstone Indus. Corp. · filed 2017-03-10(4)

A trade secret is information that derives independent economic value "from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use," and is the "subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy." KRS 365.880(4).

Section 365.880(4) defines a trade secret as information that gains independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and is subject to reasonable efforts to keep it secret.

Clayton v. Tri City Acceptance, Inc. · filed 2019-10-24(4)

The KUTSA, KRS 365.880(4), defines a “trade secret” as “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, data, device, method, technique or process that: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, 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.” KRS 365.880(4). ... Based on a common-sense interpretation, the records fall within this categorization. They are programs that contain and use data, formulas, and information to store, process, and maintain records of the credit information of individuals. ... Given these facts, the Court finds that the program is a “trade secret.”

Subsection (4) defines a trade secret by requiring independent economic value from secrecy and reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy; subsection (2)(b) covers disclosure or use without consent by someone who knew or had reason to know of a duty to maintain secrecy or limit use.

Savidge v. Pharm-Save, Inc. · filed 2020-01-17(4), (2)(b)

The KUTSA defines a trade secret as information that derives independent economic value “from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use,” and is the “subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 365.880(4) (West 2019). ... Because Plaintiffs fail to adequately plead the element that their PII qualifies as a trade secret, their KUTSA claim fails as a matter of law. Auto Channel, 144 F. Supp. 2d at 794. ... The relevant definition of misappropriation is: Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who . . . [a]t the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was . . . [a]cquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 365.880(2)(b) (West 2019). Plaintiffs’ bare allegation that Defendant misappropriated their PII by exposing it to cybercriminals—who posed as company executives—does not reach the plausibility benchmark.

Section 365.880(2) defines misappropriation in terms nearly identical to federal law, and § 365.880(4)(a) protects information as a trade secret only when it has independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means.

Allstate Insurance Company v. Hamm · filed 2020-03-23(2), (4)(a)

Misappropriation is defined similarly under both statutes. ... 18 U.S.C. § 1839(5)(B); see also KRS § 365.880(2) (defining misappropriation in nearly identical terms). Further, these client lists are not protectable trade secrets under either statute. Both define trade secrets in nearly identical ways and necessitate that the content derive “independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use[.]” KRS § 365.880(4)(a); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(B). ... Here, as explained above, the only potential trade secrets are client names and addresses. These can easily be obtained through proper means. ... The Court therefore finds that these client lists are not trade secrets.

Section 365.880(4) defines a trade secret as information with independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

Tech Com LLC v. Estep · filed 2022-03-09(4)(a)-(b)

Under Kentucky law, a trade secret is “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, data, device, method, technique, or process,” that (1) “derives independent economic value . . . from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable . . . by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use,” and (2) “is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 365.880(4)(a)-(b); Brake Parts, 443 F. App'x at 29.

Section 365.880 requires a trade secret to derive independent economic value from not being generally known and to be protected by reasonable secrecy efforts, and treats use or disclosure as misappropriation when the user knows or should know the information was acquired under circumstances creating a duty to maintain secrecy or limit use.

AWP, Inc. v. Safe Zone Services, LLC · filed 2022-07-22

“Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, data, device, method, technique, or process, that: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, 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. ... Thus, “misappropriation” occurs when “the person who uses [or discloses a trade secret] knows or has reason to know, at the time of disclosure or use, that his knowledge of the trade secret was acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use.”

Section 365.880(4) defines a trade secret as information with independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means that is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.

CellMark, Inc. v. Webster · filed 2025-05-16(4)

Trade Secret information is information that: (1) “[d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use”; and (2) “[i]s the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” KRS 365.880(4). ... Given the nature of the information, the nature of the industry, and CellMark’s efforts to prevent the information’s disclosure, CellMark has plausibly alleged the existence of a trade secret.

Section 365.880(4) defines a trade secret as information deriving economic value from secrecy and subject to reasonable efforts to maintain that secrecy, while subsection (2)(b)(2)(c) addresses use or disclosure without consent when the user knew or had reason to know the information came through someone owing a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use.

McHutchison, Inc. v. Eason Horticultural Resources, Inc. · filed 2021-06-22(4), (2)(b)(2)(c)

KRS § 365.880(4) defines “trade secret” as “information . . . that: (a) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, 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.” An individual misappropriates a trade secret if the person disclosed or used a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who “at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had a reason to know that [the] knowledge of the trade secret was . . . derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use.” KRS § 365.880(2)(b)(2)(c)5. ... Based upon the current record, Plaintiff did not make reasonable efforts to maintain the confidential nature of the rebooking reports or past customer orders. ... Accordingly, McHutchison has failed to show a strong likelihood that the customer lists would be considered a trade secret. ... Because of this, Plaintiff has failed to show a strong likelihood of success on this claim at this stage in the litigation.

Section 365.880 requires a trade-secret misappropriation plaintiff to prove that a trade secret exists and was misappropriated, including by showing economic value, non-ascertainability, reasonable secrecy efforts, and improper acquisition, disclosure, or use.

N. Harris Computer Corporation v. DSI Investments, LLC · filed 2022-06-17

To prevail on this claim, Plaintiffs must show that: (i) a trade secret exists; and (ii) that trade secret has been misappropriated. See Auto Channel, Inc. v. Speedvision Network, LLC, 144 F. Supp. 2d 784, 794 (W.D. Ky. 2001) (citing KRS 365.880). To establish the existence of a trade secret first “[p]laintiff must put forward evidence demonstrating that the information (1) has independent economic value, (2) is not readily ascertainable by proper means, and (3) was the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.” Nat’l Info. & Commc’ns Equip. Network, Inc. v. Willigan, No. 06-28-DLB, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75799, at *22 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 11, 2007) (citing KRS 365.880). “[I]t is not enough merely to show that the information is entitled to protection. Rather, Plaintiff must also show that the protected information has been misappropriated.” Id. at 22-23 (citation omitted). “To prove misappropriation, Plaintiff must show that the trade secret was acquired by improper means, was disclosed improperly, or was used by someone without proper consent.” Id. (citation omitted).

Section 365.880(2)(b) does not require a written confidentiality agreement; a trade secret may be disclosed with express or implied consent.

BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. · filed 2005-02-11(2)(b)

BDT correctly argues that the definition of trade secrets in the Uniform Act “nowhere requires a written agreement as a prerequisite to preservation of a trade secret” and that there must be “express or implied consent” in order to lawfully disclose a trade secret.