F.S. 812.081 on Google Scholar

F.S. 812.081 on Casetext

Amendments to 812.081

The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)

Title XLVI
Chapter 812
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 812.081 Florida Statutes and Case Law
812.081 Theft of or trafficking in trade secrets; definitions; penalties; providing to foreign entities; restitution.
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Endeavor” means to attempt or to try.
(b) “Foreign agent” means any officer, employee, proxy, servant, delegate, or representative of a foreign government.
(c) “Foreign instrumentality” means any agency, bureau, ministry, component, institution, association, or any legal, commercial, or business organization, corporation, firm, or entity that is substantially owned, controlled, sponsored, commanded, managed, or dominated by a foreign government.
(d) “Obtain or use” has the same meaning as provided in s. 812.012(3).
(e) “Person” means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity.
(f) “Trade secret” means the whole or any portion or phase of any formula, pattern, device, combination of devices, or compilation of information which is for use, or is used, in the operation of a business and which provides the business an advantage, or an opportunity to obtain an advantage, over those who do not know or use it. The term includes any scientific, technical, or commercial information, including financial information, and includes any design, process, procedure, list of suppliers, list of customers, business code, or improvement thereof, whether tangible or intangible, and regardless of whether or how it is stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing. Irrespective of novelty, invention, patentability, the state of the prior art, and the level of skill in the business, art, or field to which the subject matter pertains, a trade secret is considered to be:
1. Secret;
2. Of value;
3. For use or in use by the business; and
4. Of advantage to the business, or providing an opportunity to obtain an advantage, over those who do not know or use it,

when the owner thereof takes measures to prevent it from becoming available to persons other than those selected by the owner to have access thereto for limited purposes.

(g) “Traffic” has the same meaning as provided in s. 812.012(8).
(2) It is unlawful for a person to willfully and without authorization, obtain or use, or endeavor to obtain or use, a trade secret with the intent to either temporarily or permanently:
(a) Deprive or withhold from the owner thereof the control or benefit of a trade secret; or
(b) Appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another person not entitled to the trade secret.

A person who violates this subsection commits theft of a trade secret, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) A person who traffics in, or endeavors to traffic in, a trade secret that he or she knows or should know was obtained or used without authorization commits trafficking in trade secrets, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Whenever a person is charged with a violation of this section which was committed with the intent to benefit a foreign government, a foreign agent, or a foreign instrumentality, the offense for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as follows:
(a) In the case of theft of a trade secret, from a felony of the third degree to a felony of the second degree.
(b) In the case of trafficking in trade secrets, from a felony of the second degree to a felony of the first degree.

For purposes of sentencing under chapter 921 and determining incentive gain-time eligibility under chapter 944, a felony offense that is reclassified under this subsection is ranked one level above the ranking under s. 921.0022 of the offense committed.

(5) A court shall order a person convicted of violating this section to pay restitution, which shall include the value of the benefit derived from the offense, including any expenses for research and design and other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the person has avoided by committing the offense.
(6) In a prosecution for a violation of this section, the fact that the person so charged returned or intended to return the unlawfully obtained or used trade secret is not a defense.
(7) A person who owns a trade secret that is unlawfully obtained or used may bring a civil action to enjoin the continued improper use of such trade secret, and a court may require affirmative actions to protect the trade secret. Where exceptional circumstances render an injunction inequitable, a court may condition future use of the trade secret on the payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time for which such use could have been prohibited.
(8) A person may not be held criminally or civilly liable under this section for the disclosure of a trade secret when such disclosure is:
(a) Made confidentially to an attorney, law enforcement officer, or other federal, state, or local government official for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or
(b) Made in a complaint or other document filed under seal in a lawsuit or other proceeding.
History.ss. 1, 2, 3, ch. 74-136; s. 1, ch. 85-34; s. 1240, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2016-5; s. 2, ch. 2021-75.

Statutes updated from Official Statutes on: March 07, 2023
F.S. 812.081 on Google Scholar

F.S. 812.081 on Casetext

Amendments to 812.081

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 812.081
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third


Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S812.081
R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

Current data shows no reason a civil citation or a suspension or revocation of license should have been issued under Florida Statute 812.081.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

  1. New Lenox Industries, Inc. v. Fenton

    510 F. Supp. 2d 893 (M.D. Fla. 2007)   Cited 65 times
    A review of the history of the civil theft statute discloses that prior to its amendment in 1999, § 772.11 included § 812.081 as an enumerated crime for which a civil remedy applied. The current version of § 772.11 — which is applicable to this case — now includes in the list of enumerated crimes "any violation of §§. 812.012-812.037 or § 825.103(1)" but it does not expressly list § 812.081, as one of the enumerated crimes.
    PAGE 24
  2. Sepro Corp. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

    839 So. 2d 781 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Inasmuch as it "is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records shall be open for personal inspection by any person," § 119.01(1), Fla. Stat. (2002), the failure to identify information furnished to a state agency as putatively exempt from public disclosure effectively destroys any confidential character it might otherwise have enjoyed as a trade secret. Both statutory definitions of trade secrets to which the parties have referred us require this conclusion. See §§ 688.002(4)(b) 812.081(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2002). Section 812.081(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2002), broadly defines trade secrets as encompassing
    PAGE 783
  3. Managed Care of N. Am., Inc. v. Fla. Healthy Kids Corp.

    268 So. 3d 856 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times
    Delta defends the trial court's interpretation of section 812.081(1)(c) as requiring the party seeking protection from disclosure to prove "of value" as otherwise, all materials would be exempt if simply branded as "secret." Unquestionably, a reading of section 812.081(1)(c) as automatically entitling a party to a trade secret exemption by merely labelling information as confidential, has been previously condemned, and we do not retreat from sound precedent. James, Hoyer, Newcomer, Smiljanich, & Yanchunis, P.A. v. Rodale Inc., 41 So.3d 386, 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (a party may not render public records exempt from disclosure merely by designating information it furnishes a governmental agency as confidential); See also Sepro Corp. , 839 So.2d at 784 (citing Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Assocs., Inc. , 379 So.2d 633, 635 (Fla. 1980) ). For entitlement to the exemption under 812.081(1)(c), the requesting party must not only label the information as secretive, but must also prove a business advantage or an opportunity to obtain an advantage.
    PAGE 860
  4. Surterra Fla., Llc. v. Fla. Dep't of Health

    223 So. 3d 376 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times
    In the hearing before the trial court, Mr. Bergmann testified generally that he and appellants considered all of the redacted information in their applications to be trade secrets. Likewise, he made broad assertions that the identities and related information of appellants' investors and partners met the definition of a trade secret under section 812.081(1)(c). However, appellants did not present evidence showing that the identities and related information of the specific investors and partners at issue established each of the requirements found in section 812.081(1)(c).
    PAGE 379
  5. AGO

    2009-02 (Ops. Fla. Atty. Gen. Jan. 13, 2009)
    Section 581.011(4), Florida Statutes, defines "Authorized representative" to mean "any designated employee, inspector, or collaborator of the division [of Plant Industry of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services] or the United States Department of Agriculture." Thus, division representatives who obtain information under Chapter 581, Florida Statutes, that is entitled to protection as a trade secret as defined in section 812.081, Florida Statutes, are prohibited from revealing such information to any unauthorized person. Section 812.081(1)(c), defines "Trade secret" to mean:
  6. St. Johns Vein Ctr., Inc. v. StreamlineMD LLC

    347 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (M.D. Fla. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Significantly, SJVC's SA Complaint is devoid of any allegations that SJVC took "measures to prevent [its Protected Information] from becoming available to persons other than those selected by the owner to have access thereto for limited purposes." See FLA. STAT. ANN . § 812.081(1)(c). At most, SJVC alleges that neither the limited license it gave StreamlineMD for use of certain data "nor any other provision in the Service Agreement or the Business Associate Agreement afforded StreamlineMD, Mullen, Curley, or any other StreamlineMD employee authorization to access Plaintiff's Protected Information." SA Complaint at ¶ 17. Likewise, it asserts that "[n]othing in the MOU granted the Defendants access to any of the Protected Information or allowed the Defendants to use the Protected Information." Id. at ¶ 28. The Court is not convinced that the language in the Service Agreement or the MOU supports an inference that SJVC took "measures to prevent [its Protected Information] from becoming available ...." FLA. STAT. ANN. § 812.081(1)(c).
    PAGE 1070
  7. AGO

    97-87 (Ops. Fla. Atty. Gen. Dec. 31, 1997)
    The theft of such is made a crime by the provisions of section 812.081(2), Florida Statutes, as amended.
  8. Taser Int'l v. Phazzer Elecs.

    6:16-cv-366-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2023)
    otherwise owned by others. Again, per Fla. Stat. 812.081, ABBOUD would be committing a felony if he did so furnish the information to AXON. AXON's further discovery on issue would be best directed to the involved Party or non-party who the USPTO records or other responses indicate actually possess the information it seeks, via Rule 33 or a Rule 45 subpoena duces tecum.
    PAGE 5
  9. James, Hoyer, Newcomer v. Rodale, Inc.

    41 So. 3d 386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 2 times
    § 812.081(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2009) (emphasis added). Whether information qualifies as a trade secret "necessarily rests on factual determinations that are assailable on appeal only if unsupported by competent, substantial evidence." Sepro, 839 So.2d at 785.
    PAGE 388
  10. AGO

    92-43 (Ops. Fla. Atty. Gen. May. 22, 1992)
    Neither s. 812.081, F.S., nor Ch. 688, F.S., states that its provisions constitute an exemption from the requirement of the Public Records Law. The Legislature, however, has created specific exemptions from Ch. 119, F.S., for certain trade secrets. If the provisions of s. 812.081, F.S., or Ch. 688, F.S., constituted an exemption from Ch. 119, F.S., it would have been pointless for the Legislature to enact such statutes specifically exempting certain trade secrets from the requirements of the Public Records Law since s. 812.081, F.S., and Ch. 688, F.S., would have afforded such protection. The Legislature is not to be presumed to enact useless or unnecessary legislation.