1. A. Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist but the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.
2. B. In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time for which use could have been prohibited. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable.
3. C. In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by a court order.

History: Laws 1989, ch. 156, § 3.

ANNOTATIONS

Injunctive relief was proper. — Where plaintiffs sued defendant, a former employee, alleging he violated the New Mexico Uniform Trade Secrets Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 57-3A-1 through -7, and that he breached his employment agreement, his duty of good faith and fair dealing, and his fiduciary duty to plaintiffs, and where the district court entered a judgment and a permanent injunction requiring defendant to return any employer materials in his possession and preventing him from using or disclosing to others any of plaintiffs' trade secrets or confidential information, there was sufficient evidence to support injunctive relief where defendant possessed plaintiffs' trade secrets and wrongfully refused to return them after plaintiffs demanded their return. Lasen, Inc. v. Tadjikov, 2020-NMCA-006, cert. denied.

Permanent injunction was improper. — Where plaintiffs sued defendant, a former employee, alleging he violated the New Mexico Uniform Trade Secrets Act, §§ 57-3A-1 through -7 NMSA 1978, and that he breached his employment agreement, his duty of good faith and fair dealing, and his fiduciary duty to plaintiffs, and where the district court entered a judgment and a permanent injunction requiring defendant to return any employer materials in his possession and preventing him from using or disclosing to others any of plaintiffs' trade secrets or confidential information, the district court abused its discretion in issuing the permanent injunction because the parties' employment contract only imposed a five-year post-termination period of confidentiality. The injunction should not have extended defendant's obligation not to disclose plaintiffs' trade secrets and confidential information beyond the time that plaintiffs agreed was proper. Lasen, Inc. v. Tadjikov, 2020-NMCA-006, cert. denied.