Connecticut
Connecticut Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
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. · 1 primary source cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Connecticut's trade secret law, codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-50 to 35-58 (Chapter 625), is a 1983 adoption of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The statute protects qualifying confidential business information and gives an owner three years from discovery to bring a civil misappropriation claim under state law.
This guide is part of our Trade Secret Laws by State series.
Information last verified on 2026-06-25. This article presents general legal information, not legal advice. This guide covers civil trade-secret protection in Connecticut under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-50 to 35-58 and the federal DTSA; for other jurisdictions see the full Trade Secret Laws by State index.
Does Connecticut have a trade secret law?
Yes. Connecticut enacted its Trade Secrets Act in 1983, codifying it at Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-50 to 35-58 in Chapter 625 of the General Statutes (Connecticut General Assembly, cga.ct.gov). The statute tracks the UTSA in its core definitions of trade secret and misappropriation, its remedies structure, and its preemption of conflicting tort claims. Connecticut courts apply the statute as a comprehensive civil remedy for the unauthorized acquisition, disclosure, or use of protected confidential business information. The state has maintained this framework without major substantive amendments since 1983. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 layered a parallel federal remedy on top without preempting or replacing Connecticut's law.

What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Connecticut?
Under § 35-51, a trade secret is information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) 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; and (2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Customer lists, pricing models, manufacturing processes, software source code, and supplier contracts can all qualify, provided the owner consistently protects them through confidentiality agreements, access restrictions, and employee policies.
Misappropriation under § 35-51 includes acquiring a trade secret while knowing or having reason to know it was acquired by improper means, or disclosing or using a trade secret without consent when the person knows or has reason to know it was obtained by improper means, in breach of a duty of confidentiality, or through accident or mistake where the person had notice the information was a trade secret. Section 35-51 defines improper means but does not expressly name reverse engineering or independent development. Independently reaching the same information without improper acquisition, use, or breach of confidentiality does not itself establish misappropriation.
Remedies and the limitations period in Connecticut
A court may grant an injunction under § 35-52 to stop actual or threatened misappropriation for as long as the secret would have remained protectable, taking into account any lead-time advantage the defendant gained. If the court determines that prohibiting future use would be unreasonable, an injunction may condition future use on a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period the use could have been prohibited (§ 35-52(b)).

Section 35-53 allows recovery of actual loss caused by the misappropriation plus any unjust enrichment the defendant received that is not already captured by the actual-loss measure. Section 35-53(a) does not expressly provide a royalty as an alternative damages measure; the express royalty provision in § 35-52(b) concerns future use under an injunction. When the misappropriation was willful and malicious, § 35-53(b) authorizes exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory award and reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees are also available under § 35-54 when a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, or when a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith.
The limitations period under § 35-56 is three years from the date the misappropriation was discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. Because continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim running from the first act the owner discovered or should have discovered, investigating suspected theft without delay is important.
How the federal DTSA applies in Connecticut
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, effective May 11, 2016) gives Connecticut trade-secret owners a parallel federal cause of action when the secret relates to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. The DTSA limitations period is three years from discovery (§ 1836(d)), matching Connecticut's state deadline. The federal statute does not preempt Connecticut's law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so owners regularly bring both claims together in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction.
The DTSA adds two features Connecticut's statute does not include. First, a court may issue an ex parte civil seizure order to prevent further dissemination of a secret in extraordinary circumstances (§ 1836(b)(2)). Second, under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3), any confidentiality or employment agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must notify the employee of the statutory whistleblower immunity: employees cannot face civil or criminal liability for disclosing a trade secret to a government official or attorney solely to report a suspected legal violation. An employer who omits that notice from the agreement forfeits the right to recover exemplary damages and attorney fees from that employee under the DTSA, even if the theft was deliberate. Connecticut employers with post-May 2016 agreements should confirm the notice is present.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes Connecticut trade-secret law under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-50 to 35-58 and the federal DTSA as of 2026-06-25 and does not address your specific facts. Trade-secret disputes are highly fact-specific and deadlines are strict. Consult an attorney licensed in Connecticut before acting.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Delaware Trade Secret Laws
- Massachusetts Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the limitations period for a trade-secret claim in Connecticut?
Three years from the date the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-56. Courts treat continuing misappropriation as a single claim running from the first act the owner knew or should have known about, so prompt investigation is critical to preserving the claim.
Does Connecticut's Trade Secrets Act preempt common-law tort claims?
Yes. Under § 35-57, the Act displaces conflicting civil claims based on the misappropriation of a trade secret that would otherwise arise under Connecticut common law of torts. The preemption clause does not affect remedies based on contract, unjust enrichment unrelated to misappropriation, or criminal liability.
Can a Connecticut employer recover exemplary damages when an employee steals a trade secret?
Yes, if misappropriation was willful and malicious, § 35-53(b) allows exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award plus attorney fees. To also recover exemplary damages under the federal DTSA, the employer must have included the statutory whistleblower-immunity notice (18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)) in any confidentiality agreement entered into or updated after May 11, 2016.
Is reverse engineering a trade secret lawful in Connecticut?
Generally, yes, subject to confidentiality duties and the statutory conditions. Section 35-51 covers acquisition with knowledge or reason to know of improper means, and unauthorized disclosure or use under its specified knowledge and duty conditions. Section 35-51 does not expressly name reverse engineering or independent development. Independently discovering information without improper acquisition, use, or breach of confidentiality does not itself establish misappropriation.
Can a Connecticut trade-secret owner get an injunction?
Yes. Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-52, a court may enter an injunction against actual or threatened misappropriation. The court may extend injunctive relief for as long as is necessary to eliminate the commercial advantage from the misappropriation. Where an injunction is inequitable, the court may instead order the defendant to pay a reasonable royalty for a defined future period.
Updates
Corrected Connecticut’s statutory royalty descriptions and removed the claim that its definitions expressly name reverse engineering and independent development.
Corrected five Connecticut Trade Secrets Act section citations (injunctive relief, damages, exemplary damages/attorney's fees, the limitations period, and preemption) that pointed to the wrong section numbers throughout the article.
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
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.
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 35 (Trade Regulations, Trademarks and Collective and Certification Marks), Chapter 625
§ 35-52Injunctive relief.In force
(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined upon application to any court of competent jurisdiction. 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. (b) If the court determines that it would be unreasonable to prohibit future use, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited. (c) In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
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
§ 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: Trade Secret Laws by State: UTSA & DTSA (2026), District of Columbia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Delaware Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1831Economic espionageIn forcecited in 24 of our articles
Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly— steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret; without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret; receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3); or conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of 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 not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 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 249 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 2016, 844 F.3d 1024)“…ade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq. When Nosal left Korn/Ferry,…”
- United States v. Aleynikov (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2012, 676 F.3d 71)“…EEA contains two operative provisions. The first section ( 18 U.S.C. § 1831 (a)), which is not charged in the indic…”
- United States v. Chung (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2011, 659 F.3d 815)“…of violating the Economic Espi- onage Act of 1996 (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a)(1), (3); on one count of conspiring…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Michigan Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Minnesota Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Connecticut Trade Secrets Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-50 to 35-58 (Chapter 625)(cga.ct.gov).gov
- Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839(law.cornell.edu)
- Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Uniform Law Commission)(uniformlaws.org)
- Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832(law.cornell.edu)