Colorado § 7-74-107 - Statute of limitations.

§ 7-74-107. Statute of limitations.

An action for misappropriation of a trade secret shall be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. For the purposes of this section, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim.

Source: L. 86: Entire article added, p. 462, § 1, effective July 1.

Cross references: For other provisions relating to limitations on personal actions, see article 80 of title 13.

ANNOTATION

The statute of limitations begins to run once a plaintiff learns a defendant improperly disclosed trade secrets, even though the defendant subsequently may also have unlawfully used those same trade secrets. Chasteen v. UNISIA JECS Corp., 216 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2000).

The statute of limitations on trade secret misappropriation claims begins to run not when a plaintiff can positively and directly prove misappropriation rather than independent development, but simply when the plaintiff has knowledge of sufficient facts from which a reasonable jury could infer misappropriation. Chasteen v. UNISIA JECS Corp., 216 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2000); Gognat v. Ellsworth, 224 P.3d 1039 (Colo. App. 2009), aff'd, 259 P.3d 497 (Colo. 2011).

To bring a claim of trade secret misappropriation, one does not need to know the specific damage inflicted. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 363 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Statute provides for a single accrual date for multiple misappropriations of a single trade secret or of multiple, related trade secrets, coinciding with the first date plaintiff has knowledge of sufficient facts from which a jury could reasonably infer misappropriation. Gognat v. Ellsworth, 224 P.3d 1039 (Colo. App. 2009), aff'd, 259 P.3d 497 (Colo. 2011).

By specifying that "a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim," statute evinces a clear legislative intent that multiple misappropriations by the same party be treated as a single claim for accrual purposes. Gognat v. Ellsworth, 224 P.3d 1039 (Colo. App. 2009), aff'd, 259 P.3d 497 (Colo. 2011).