Delaware
Delaware 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. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Delaware's trade secret statute, codified at 6 Del. C. §§ 2001 to 2009 (Title 6, Chapter 20), is a 1982 adoption of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The law gives owners three years from discovery to bring a civil misappropriation claim, with both state and parallel federal remedies available in Delaware courts or federal court.
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 Delaware under 6 Del. C. §§ 2001 to 2009 and the federal DTSA; for other jurisdictions see the full Trade Secret Laws by State index.
Does Delaware have a trade secret law?
Yes. Delaware enacted its Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1982, codifying it at Title 6, Chapter 20 of the Delaware Code, sections 2001 through 2009 (Delaware Code, delcode.delaware.gov). The statute follows the UTSA framework in its definition of trade secret and misappropriation, its remedies structure, and its preemption of conflicting tort claims. Delaware courts apply the Act as the exclusive civil remedy for trade-secret misappropriation, displacing the patchwork of common-law theories that existed before enactment. The state has maintained this framework since 1982 without major substantive revision. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 added a parallel federal remedy that runs alongside Delaware's statute.

What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Delaware?
Under § 2001, 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 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. Pricing data, manufacturing processes, customer lists, proprietary software, and financial models can all qualify, provided the owner takes consistent protective steps such as confidentiality agreements, physical access controls, and onboarding policies for employees with access.
Misappropriation under § 2001 includes acquiring another’s trade secret while knowing or having reason to know it was acquired by improper means. Disclosure or use without express or implied consent is also covered when the person used improper means to acquire the secret, or at disclosure or use knew or had reason to know the knowledge came through improper means, arose under a duty of secrecy or limited use, or came from someone who owed such a duty. Another branch covers knowledge, before a material change of position, that the information was a trade secret acquired by accident or mistake. Section 2001 defines improper means but does not expressly name reverse engineering or independent development. Independent work that does not acquire, disclose, or use another’s secret under those conditions does not establish misappropriation.
Remedies and the limitations period in Delaware
A court may grant an injunction under § 2002 to stop actual or threatened misappropriation. The injunction may extend for as long as is needed to eliminate the commercial advantage resulting from the misappropriation, taking into account any head-start the defendant obtained. Where injunctive relief is not appropriate because the information has already been integrated into ongoing operations, the court may impose a royalty obligation for a reasonable period instead.

Section 2003 allows recovery of actual damages for the loss caused by misappropriation plus any unjust enrichment not captured by the actual-loss measure, or alternatively damages measured by a reasonable royalty for unauthorized disclosure or use, in place of other damages measures. When misappropriation was willful and malicious, the court may award exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory award under § 2003. Under § 2004, the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party if a misappropriation claim is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists.
The limitations period under § 2006 is three years from the date the misappropriation was discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. Delaware courts treat continuing misappropriation as a single claim running from the first act the owner discovered or should have discovered. Waiting to investigate after noticing warning signs risks losing the claim under the statute of limitations.
How the federal DTSA applies in Delaware
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, effective May 11, 2016) provides Delaware trade-secret owners with a parallel federal cause of action in federal court when the secret relates to a product or service in interstate or foreign commerce. The DTSA limitations period is three years from discovery (§ 1836(d)), the same as Delaware's state period. The federal statute does not preempt Delaware's law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so owners frequently bring both claims together, typically in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
The DTSA adds two tools absent from Delaware's statute. First, a court may issue an ex parte civil seizure order in extraordinary circumstances to prevent further dissemination of a misappropriated secret before the defendant can be heard (§ 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 include a notice informing the employee of the statutory whistleblower immunity: employees are protected from civil or criminal liability when they disclose a trade secret to a government official or attorney solely to report a suspected legal violation. An employer who omits the notice from such an agreement forfeits the ability to recover exemplary damages and attorney fees from that employee under the DTSA, even for deliberate theft. Delaware employers should audit post-May 2016 agreements to confirm compliance.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes Delaware trade-secret law under 6 Del. C. §§ 2001 to 2009 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 Delaware before acting.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Pennsylvania Trade Secret Laws
- Maryland 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 Delaware?
Three years from the date misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, under 6 Del. C. § 2006. Delaware courts treat continuing misappropriation as a single claim running from the first act the owner knew or should have known about. Investigating suspected theft promptly is essential to preserving the claim within the three-year window.
Does Delaware's trade-secret statute preempt common-law tort claims?
Yes. Under 6 Del. C. § 2007, the Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act displaces conflicting civil remedies based on misappropriation of a trade secret that would otherwise exist under Delaware common law of torts. The preemption clause does not affect remedies grounded in contract, criminal statutes, or other torts that do not depend on trade-secret misappropriation.
Can Delaware employers recover exemplary damages for trade-secret theft?
Yes. Under § 2003, if misappropriation was willful and malicious, a court may award exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory award, plus attorney fees under § 2004. 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 relevant confidentiality agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016.
Is reverse engineering a trade secret lawful in Delaware?
Section 2001 defines improper means but does not expressly name reverse engineering or independent development. Liability depends on the statutory acquisition, disclosure, or use conditions, including knowledge and confidentiality duties. Independent work that does not acquire, disclose, or use another’s secret under those conditions does not establish misappropriation; the section is not an express blanket authorization for reverse engineering.
Why do many trade-secret cases involving Delaware companies end up in federal court?
Delaware is the state of incorporation for many U.S. companies, so trade-secret disputes often involve parties from different states, satisfying federal diversity jurisdiction. Parties also frequently invoke the federal DTSA alongside state claims, giving them access to federal court. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has significant experience handling complex commercial litigation, making federal court a common choice for high-stakes trade-secret cases.
Updates
Corrected the statutory description of reverse engineering, misappropriation conditions, and attorney-fee grounds.
Corrected two Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act section citations (the statute of limitations and the preemption clause) that were each off by one section number.
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.
Delaware Code, Title 6 (Commerce and Trade), Chapter 020 (TRADE SECRETS)
§ 2003Damages.In force
(a) Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders a monetary recovery inequitable, a complainant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator’s unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret. (b) If wilful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (a) of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
§ 2001Definitions.In force
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1) “Improper means” shall include theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. (2) “Misappropriation” shall mean: a. Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or b. Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who: 1. Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or 2. At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the trade was: A. Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; B. Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or C. Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
Cited in 76 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Beard Research, Inc. v. Kates (Court of Chancery of Delaware 2010, 8 A.3d 573)“…e information in question qualifies as a trade secret under 6 Del. C. § 2001(4). No such showing is required to prov…”
- Total Care Physicians, P.A. v. O'Hara (Superior Court of Delaware 2001, 798 A.2d 1043)“…practice in a geographical area. 12 . 6 Del. C. § 2001(4). 13 . 6…”
- Dravo Bay d/b/a Blue Rock Financial Group v. James Whalen (Court of Chancery of Delaware 2026)“…2 WL 31667901, at *4 (Del. Super. Oct. 29, 2002)). See also 6 Del. C. § 2001 et seq. 158 Great Am. Opportuniti…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
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
§ 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), Alaska Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, California 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: Colorado Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Connecticut Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Georgia 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: District of Columbia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Massachusetts Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Michigan Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 6 Del. C. §§ 2001 to 2009 (Title 6, Chapter 20)(delcode.delaware.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)
- 6 Del. C. § 2001, definitions(delcode.delaware.gov).gov
- 6 Del. C. § 2004, attorney fees(delcode.delaware.gov).gov