Trade Practices and Antitrust Regulation

ORS 646.473
Conflicting tort, restitution or other law providing civil remedies

  • exclusions for certain other remedies
  • limited immunity for public bodies and officers, employees and agents

(1)

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, ORS 646.461 (Definitions for ORS 646.461 to 646.475) to 646.475 (Application and construction of ORS 646.461 to 646.475) supersede conflicting tort, restitution or other law of Oregon providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.

(2)

ORS 646.461 (Definitions for ORS 646.461 to 646.475) to 646.475 (Application and construction of ORS 646.461 to 646.475) shall not affect:

(a)

Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret;

(b)

Other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret;

(c)

Criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or

(d)

Any defense, immunity or limitation of liability afforded public bodies, their officers, employees or agents under ORS 30.260 (Definitions for ORS 30.260 to 30.300) to 30.300 (ORS 30.260 to 30.300 exclusive).

(3)

Notwithstanding any other provision in ORS 646.461 (Definitions for ORS 646.461 to 646.475) to 646.475 (Application and construction of ORS 646.461 to 646.475), public bodies and their officers, employees and agents are immune from any claim or action for misappropriation of a trade secret that is based on the disclosure or release of information in obedience to or in good faith reliance on any order of disclosure issued pursuant to ORS 192.311 (Definitions for ORS 192.311 to 192.478) to 192.431 (Court authority in reviewing action denying right to inspect public records) or on the advice of an attorney authorized to advise the public body, its officers, employees or agents. [1987 c.537 §8]

Notes of Decisions

Preemption applies to claim seeking other remedy where claim seeking other remedy is based on same operative facts that support claim for misappropriation of trade secret. Acrymed, Inc. v. Convatec, 317 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (D. Or. 2004)

§§ 646.461 to 646.475

Law Review Citations

35 WLR 629 (1999)

Chapter 646

Notes of Decisions

Subject matter regulated by this chapter is not "preempted" by Federal Robinson-Patman Act so as to render this chapter invalid. W. J. Seufert v. Nat. Restaurant Supply Co., 266 Or 92, 511 P2d 363 (1973)

Whether an injunction should issue when a court finds a violation of the Act is a matter of discretion. State ex rel Johnson v. International Harvester Co., 25 Or App 9, 548 P2d 176 (1976)

This chapter imposes no affirmative duty to inform customers of rates in absence of request, but prohibits making information about prices available to some customers and not others. Wildish Sand & Gravel v. Northwest Natural Gas Co., 103 Or App 215, 796 P2d 1237 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021

REMOVE ADS