Trade Secret Laws by State: UTSA & DTSA (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Trade secret law in the United States runs on two tracks: the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (18 U.S.C. § 1836) and each state's own statute. Forty-nine jurisdictions have adopted a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. New York is the only state that still relies on common law.
This article presents general legal information about United States federal and state law, not legal advice. Statutes change; confirm the current law for your jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction scope: This hub covers civil trade-secret law in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal DTSA, plus the federal criminal Economic Espionage Act. It links a detailed, citation-backed guide for each state. For who owns and can protect AI-written code, a related question, see AI copyright law in the United States.
What is a trade secret?
A trade secret is information that a business keeps confidential because its secrecy gives it economic value. Under the DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1839) and the UTSA, the same two-part test applies: the information must (1) derive independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by others who could profit from it, and (2) be the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to keep it secret. Common examples include customer lists, manufacturing processes, source code, pricing models, formulas, and supplier terms.
Two limits matter. First, secrecy is mandatory: if the information becomes public, protection ends permanently. Second, not all copying is wrongful. Reverse engineering a lawfully obtained product and independent development are expressly proper means under both the DTSA and the UTSA, so a competitor who figures out your process on its own has not misappropriated anything.
Federal and state law: the DTSA and the UTSA
The United States protects trade secrets through parallel federal and state regimes. The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 created a federal civil cause of action, letting an owner sue in federal court when the trade secret relates to a product or service used in interstate or foreign commerce. Crucially, the DTSA does not displace state law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so plaintiffs commonly bring federal and state claims together.
At the state level, 48 states plus the District of Columbia have enacted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, first promulgated in 1979 and amended in 1985. Minnesota adopted it in 1980; Massachusetts was the last, in 2018. The UTSA standardizes the definition of a trade secret, the meaning of misappropriation, the three-year limitations period, and the available remedies. New York is the lone holdout with no statute, and North Carolina enacted its own 1981 Trade Secrets Protection Act that the Uniform Law Commission does not count as a formal UTSA adoption.
Separately, the federal Economic Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832) makes trade-secret theft a crime, with § 1831 covering theft that benefits a foreign government and § 1832 covering domestic commercial theft.
How misappropriation works, and the remedies
Misappropriation means acquiring a trade secret by improper means (theft, bribery, misrepresentation, or breach of a duty to keep it secret), or using or disclosing it without consent when the person knew or had reason to know it was obtained improperly. An owner who proves misappropriation can seek several remedies under UTSA §§ 2-4 and DTSA § 1836(b)(3):
- An injunction stopping actual or threatened use, for as long as the secret would have remained protectable.
- Damages for actual loss plus any unjust enrichment not captured by that loss, or, as an alternative, a reasonable royalty.
- Exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory award when the misappropriation was willful and malicious.
- Attorney fees when the misappropriation was willful and malicious, or when a claim was made in bad faith.
One DTSA trap for employers: under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3), any agreement governing confidential information signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must notify the employee of the statute's whistleblower immunity. If it does not, the employer cannot recover exemplary damages or attorney fees from that employee, even for willful theft.
How long you have to sue: limitations by state
The default limitations period is three years from when the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. A handful of states deviate, so the deadline depends on where you sue.
| Limitations period | States |
|---|---|
| 2 years | Alabama |
| 3 years (standard) | Most states, the District of Columbia, and the federal DTSA |
| 4 years | Maine, Ohio |
| 5 years | Georgia, Illinois, Missouri |
Continuing misappropriation is generally treated as a single claim that runs from the first act the owner discovered or should have discovered, so prompt investigation matters.
Trade secret laws by state
Each guide below covers that state's statute citation, its definition of a trade secret, the limitations period, available remedies, and how the federal DTSA overlays state law. New York's guide covers the common-law test instead of a statute.
| State | Trade secret statute | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Ala. Code §§ 8-27-1 to 8-27-6 | 2 years |
| Alaska | Alaska Stat. §§ 45.50.910 to 45.50.945 | 3 years |
| Arizona | Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-401 to 44-407 | 3 years |
| Arkansas | Ark. Code §§ 4-75-601 to 4-75-607 | 3 years |
| California | Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426 to 3426.11 | 3 years |
| Colorado | Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 7-74-101 to 7-74-110 | 3 years |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-50 to 35-58 | 3 years |
| Delaware | 6 Del. C. §§ 2001 to 2009 | 3 years |
| District of Columbia | D.C. Code §§ 36-401 to 36-410 | 3 years |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. §§ 688.001 to 688.009 | 3 years |
| Georgia | Ga. Code §§ 10-1-760 to 10-1-767 | 5 years |
| Hawaii | Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 482B-1 to 482B-9 | 3 years |
| Idaho | Idaho Code §§ 48-801 to 48-807 | 3 years |
| Illinois | 765 ILCS 1065/1 to 1065/9 | 5 years |
| Indiana | Ind. Code §§ 24-2-3-1 to 24-2-3-8 | 3 years |
| Iowa | Iowa Code §§ 550.1 to 550.8 | 3 years |
| Kansas | Kan. Stat. §§ 60-3320 to 60-3330 | 3 years |
| Kentucky | Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 365.880 to 365.900 | 3 years |
| Louisiana | La. Rev. Stat. §§ 51:1431 to 51:1439 | 3 years |
| Maine | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, §§ 1541 to 1548 | 4 years |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 11-1201 to 11-1209 | 3 years |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93, §§ 42 to 42G | 3 years |
| Michigan | Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.1901 to 445.1910 | 3 years |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. §§ 325C.01 to 325C.08 | 3 years |
| Mississippi | Miss. Code §§ 75-26-1 to 75-26-19 | 3 years |
| Missouri | Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 417.450 to 417.467 | 5 years |
| Montana | Mont. Code §§ 30-14-401 to 30-14-409 | 3 years |
| Nebraska | Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 87-501 to 87-507 | 3 years |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 600A.010 to 600A.100 | 3 years |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 350-B:1 to 350-B:9 | 3 years |
| New Jersey | N.J. Stat. §§ 56:15-1 to 56:15-9 | 3 years |
| New Mexico | N.M. Stat. §§ 57-3A-1 to 57-3A-7 | 3 years |
| New York | Common law (no statute) | 3 years |
| North Carolina | N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 66-152 to 66-157 | 3 years |
| North Dakota | N.D. Cent. Code §§ 47-25.1-01 to 47-25.1-08 | 3 years |
| Ohio | Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1333.61 to 1333.69 | 4 years |
| Oklahoma | Okla. Stat. tit. 78, §§ 85 to 94 | 3 years |
| Oregon | Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.461 to 646.475 | 3 years |
| Pennsylvania | 12 Pa. C.S. §§ 5301 to 5308 | 3 years |
| Rhode Island | R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6-41-1 to 6-41-11 | 3 years |
| South Carolina | S.C. Code §§ 39-8-20 to 39-8-130 | 3 years |
| South Dakota | S.D. Codified Laws §§ 37-29-1 to 37-29-11 | 3 years |
| Tennessee | Tenn. Code §§ 47-25-1701 to 47-25-1709 | 3 years |
| Texas | Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code §§ 134A.001 to 134A.008 | 3 years |
| Utah | Utah Code §§ 13-24-1 to 13-24-9 | 3 years |
| Vermont | 9 V.S.A. §§ 4601 to 4609 | 3 years |
| Virginia | Va. Code §§ 59.1-336 to 59.1-343 | 3 years |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.108.010 to 19.108.940 | 3 years |
| West Virginia | W. Va. Code §§ 47-22-1 to 47-22-10 | 3 years |
| Wisconsin | Wis. Stat. § 134.90 | 3 years |
| Wyoming | Wyo. Stat. §§ 40-24-101 to 40-24-110 | 3 years |
New York: the common-law outlier
New York is the only state without a trade-secrets statute. Its courts apply the common law, weighing the six factors from the Restatement of Torts § 757, comment b: how widely the information is known outside the business, how widely it is known to employees, the secrecy measures taken, the information's value to the business and its competitors, the effort and money spent developing it, and how easily others could properly acquire or duplicate it. A New York plaintiff must still show it held a trade secret and that the defendant used it through a breach of confidence or improper means. The federal DTSA applies in New York without any state-law limitation, which is why many New York owners sue under the DTSA in federal court.
Trade secrets and AI-generated code
Trade-secret law is the state-law claim that most often travels alongside a software copyright dispute. Source code can be both copyrighted and a protected trade secret, and a departing engineer who takes proprietary code may face a trade-secret claim even where copyright questions are murky. This intersection has grown sharper as teams build with AI coding tools. For how copyright treats software and AI-written code, see is AI-generated code copyright infringement? and the broader AI copyright law hub.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes United States federal and state trade-secret law and does not address your specific situation. Trade-secret disputes are fact-specific and deadlines are strict. Consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction before acting.
Related articles
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
- AI copyright law in the United States
- AI laws and regulation in the United States
Targeted corrections on 2026-09-10: Virginia and Maine filing deadlines and UTSA adoption history.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret?
Information qualifies if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable, and the owner takes reasonable measures to keep it secret (18 U.S.C. § 1839; UTSA § 1). Common examples are customer lists, formulas, source code, processes, and pricing models. Reverse engineering and independent development are lawful and do not count as misappropriation.
What is the difference between the federal DTSA and state trade-secret law?
The DTSA (2016) creates a federal civil claim you can bring in federal court when the secret relates to interstate or foreign commerce. State laws, usually based on the UTSA, provide parallel state-court remedies. The DTSA does not preempt state law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so owners often plead both. DTSA-only features include civil ex parte seizure (§ 1836(b)(2)) and the employer whistleblower-notice rule.
How long do I have to file a trade-secret lawsuit?
Usually three years from when you discovered or should have discovered the misappropriation, under the DTSA (§ 1836(d)) and most state statutes (UTSA § 6). Exceptions: Alabama is 2 years; Maine and Ohio are 4 years; Georgia, Illinois, and Missouri are 5 years. Because continuing misappropriation runs from the first act you should have discovered, investigate suspected theft promptly.
What remedies are available if my trade secret is stolen?
Injunctions to stop use, actual damages plus unjust enrichment (or a reasonable royalty), exemplary damages up to twice the award for willful and malicious misappropriation, and attorney fees in willful or bad-faith cases (UTSA §§ 2-4; DTSA § 1836(b)(3)). Courts weigh the hardship to the defendant against the harm to the owner when shaping injunctive relief.
Does New York have a trade-secrets statute?
No. New York is the only state without one. Its courts apply the common-law Restatement of Torts § 757 six-factor test, and plaintiffs must show they held a trade secret that the defendant used through breach of confidence or improper means. The federal DTSA still applies in New York, so many owners sue under the DTSA in federal court.
How is a trade secret different from a patent or copyright?
A patent or copyright grants a time-limited monopoly in exchange for public disclosure. A trade secret protects information precisely because it stays secret, and it can last indefinitely, but only while secrecy holds. If the information becomes public by any means, including lawful reverse engineering, trade-secret protection is lost permanently.
Updates
Corrected Virginia’s three-year and Maine’s four-year deadlines and removed the incorrect claim that Washington adopted the UTSA first.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
State-by-state comparison
Each state guide below is paired with the governing statute our editors adjudicated for it, held in our own legal record and verified against the official source.
Each statute shown is the same adjudicated anchor its state guide renders, independently verified against primary sources. A dash means not yet adjudicated in our record — never that no law exists.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 18
§ 1836Civil proceedingsIn forcecited in 52 of our articles
The Attorney General may, in a civil action, obtain appropriate injunctive relief against any violation of this chapter. An owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil action under this subsection if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. Based on an affidavit or verified complaint satisfying the requirements of this paragraph, the court may, upon ex parte application but only in extraordinary circumstances, issue an order providing for the seizure of property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret that is the subject of the action.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,770 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):First Western Capital Management Co. v. Malamed (2017) held Section 1836(b)(3)(A) authorizes but does not mandate an injunction, so irreparable harm cannot be presumed. Syntel v. TriZetto (2023) vacated an avoided-costs award, holding unjust enrichment was unavailable where actual loss already captured the gain.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Oakwood Laboratories LLC v. Bagavathikanun Thanoo (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2021, 999 F.3d 892)✓A drug developer alleged a departing scientist took its microsphere manufacturing processes to a competitor; the Third Circuit vacated dismissal, holding the Section 1836(b) claim was pled adequately and that lost exclusivity is harm even before a rival product launches.
- First Western Capital Management Co. v. Malamed (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2017, 874 F.3d 1136)✓A wealth manager won an injunction stopping a fired executive from soliciting clients without proving irreparable harm; the Tenth Circuit held Section 1836(b)(3)(A) authorizes but does not mandate injunctions, so irreparable harm cannot be presumed, and reversed.
- DTC Energy Grp., Inc. v. Hirschfeld (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2018, 912 F.3d 1263)✓An oil and gas staffing firm sought to enjoin a former manager who diverted contracts to a rival; the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial, holding Section 1836(b)(3)(A) allows no presumption of irreparable harm and finding no proof the defendants still held the trade secrets.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Arizona Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Arkansas Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1839DefinitionsIn force
As used in this chapter— the term “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; the term “foreign agent” means any officer, employee, proxy, servant, delegate, or representative of a foreign government; the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if— the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,139 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Oakwood Laboratories LLC v. Bagavathikanun Thanoo (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2021, 999 F.3d 892)“…hat the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep secret, 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3); (2) that “is related to a product o…”
- Life Spine, Inc. v. Aegis Spine, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2021, 8 F.4th 531)“…mic value from the dis‐ closure or use of the information.” 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3). Illi‐ nois’s definition is material…”
- Inteliclear, LLC v. Etc Global Holdings (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2020, 978 F.3d 653)“…taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret.” 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3). The panel held that there was a tri…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 1838Construction with other lawsIn forcecited in 52 of our articles
Except as provided in section 1833(b), this chapter shall not be construed to preempt or displace any other remedies, whether civil or criminal, provided by United States Federal, State, commonwealth, possession, or territory law for the misappropriation of a trade secret, or to affect the otherwise lawful disclosure of information by any Government employee under section 552 of title 5 (commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts cite 18 U.S.C. 1838 to note that the Defend Trade Secrets Act does not displace state trade secret remedies. Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius, Ltd. v. the TriZetto Grp. (2023) said so while drawing on state UTSA cases for DTSA damages; Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc. (2025) cited it for parallel claims.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius, Ltd. v. the TriZetto Grp. (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2023, 68 F.4th 792)✓Reviewing a $285 million DTSA award for misappropriated software trade secrets, the Second Circuit cited section 1838 for the point that the DTSA does not preempt state trade secret remedies, and so read the federal damages provision alongside state UTSA cases.
- Authority to Obtain and Share Statewide Voter Roll Data (Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 2026)“…luded a saving provision for state privacy laws, see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1838; 42 U.S.C. § 300jj-19(c)(4), “Congress…”
- Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2025)“…tate and federal trade- secret-misappropriation claims. See 18 U.S.C. § 1838 (providing that DTSA “shall not be cons…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alaska Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, California Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Colorado Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1833Exceptions to prohibitionsIn forcecited in 40 of our articles
This chapter does not prohibit or create a private right of action for— any otherwise lawful activity conducted by a governmental entity of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State; or the disclosure of a trade secret in accordance with subsection (b). An individual shall not be held criminally or civilly liable under any Federal or State trade secret law for the disclosure of a trade secret that— is made— in confidence to a Federal, State, or local government official, either directly or indirectly, or to an attorney; and solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law; or is made in a complaint or other document filed in a lawsuit or other proceeding, if such filing is made under seal. An individual who files a lawsuit for retaliation by an employer for reporting a suspected violation of law may disclose the trade secret to the attorney of the individual and use the trade secret information in the court proceeding, if the individual— files any document containing the trade secret under seal; and does not disclose the trade secret, except pursuant to court order.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 43 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Unum Group v. Loftus (2016) treated 18 USC 1833(b) immunity as an affirmative defense and refused to dismiss trade secret claims because the record could not establish it at that stage of the litigation. 12 Marketing, LLC v. White (2025) applied section 1833(b)(3) to bar DTSA exemplary damages and fees where the employer gave no notice.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd. (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2024, 108 F.4th 458)“…TSA § 2(g), 130 Stat. at 382, to be set out as a note under 18 U.S.C. § 1833 (“[T]he amendments made by this section…”
- Unum Group v. Loftus (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2016, 220 F. Supp. 3d 143)✓An employee who removed boxes of documents from his employer and gave them to his attorney claimed section 1833(b) whistleblower immunity; the court found the record could not establish that defense at the pleading stage and denied dismissal.
- MONEX DEPOSIT CO. v. Gilliam (District Court, C.D. California 2010, 680 F. Supp. 2d 1148)✓A defendant sued for misappropriating a document marked confidential property of Monex claimed immunity under section 1833(2); the court rejected that, saying the statute concerns federal criminal law and has nothing to do with civil liability under California trade secret law.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: District of Columbia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Connecticut Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Delaware Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1832Theft of trade secretsIn forcecited in 28 of our articles
Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly— steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information; without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information; receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 260 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Nosal (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2012, 676 F.3d 854)“…Congress did just that in the federal trade secrets statute—18 U.S.C. § 1832—where it used the common law terms for…”
- United States v. Kai-Lo Hsu, A/K/A James Hsu. United States of America v. Chester S. Ho. United States of America (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1998, 155 F.3d 189)“…and a conspiracy to steal trade secrets, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1832 (a)(4) and (a)(5). B. The…”
- United States v. Martin (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2000, 228 F.3d 1)“…16- Espionage Act of 1996, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a)(5).6 In order to find a defendant g…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Florida Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Idaho Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 134: Miscellaneous Trade Regulations
§ 134.90Uniform trade secrets act.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Definitions. In this section: (a) “Improper means” includes espionage, theft, bribery, misrepresentation and breach or inducement of a breach of duty to maintain secrecy. (b) “Readily ascertainable” information does not include information accessible through a license agreement or by an employee under a confidentiality agreement with his or her employer. (c) “Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process to which all of the following apply: 1. The information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. 2. The information is the subject of efforts to maintain its secrecy that are reasonable under the circumstances. (2) Misappropriation. No person, including the state, may misappropriate or threaten to misappropriate a trade secret by doing any of the following: (a) Acquiring the trade secret of another by means which the person knows or has reason to know constitute improper means.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-09 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 96 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Burbank Grease Services, LLC v. Sokolowski (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2006, 294 Wis. 2d 274)“…requires us to determine whether the trade secret statute, Wis. Stat. § 134.90 (2003-04), 1 precludes all civil law…”
- North Highland Inc. v. Jefferson Machine & Tool Inc. (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2017, 377 Wis. 2d 496)“…id amount constitutes 'information' as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 134.90(1)(c).).…”
- Aon Risk Services, Inc. v. Liebenstein (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2005, 289 Wis. 2d 127)“…479, 482 (Ct. App. 1999) (trade-secret protection under Wis. Stat. § 134.90 ). ¶ 7. In order to survive summ…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
California Civil Code
§ 3426In forcecited in 2 of our articles
This title may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 303 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Pavlovich v. Superior Court (California Supreme Court 2002, 127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 329)“…re. California’s adoption of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code, § 3426 et seq.) reflects both its common conce…”
- Ajaxo Inc. v. E Trade Group, Inc. (California Court of Appeal 2005, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 221)“…tion under the provisions of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code, §§ 3426-3426.il), 22 and under the…”
- Amn Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 5th District 2018, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 577)“…rade secrets as set forth in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civil Code sections 3426 et seq . (UTSA). Defendants filed a c…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839(law.cornell.edu)
- Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832(law.cornell.edu)
- Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Uniform Law Commission)(uniformlaws.org)
- Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 134A.001 to 134A.008(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3426(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Va. Code § 59.1-340: three-year deadline(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1547: four-year deadline(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. § 325C.08: 1980 enactment history(www.revisor.mn.gov).gov