2017 ORS 646.473¹
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)

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

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 646—Trade Practices and Antitrust Regulation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors646.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 646, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano646.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.