District of Columbia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines

The District of Columbia's trade secret law, codified at D.C. Code §§ 36-401 to 36-410, is based on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and was enacted in 1988. The statute protects qualifying confidential business information and gives an owner three years from discovery to bring a civil misappropriation claim in DC Superior Court 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 the District of Columbia under D.C. Code §§ 36-401 to 36-410 and the federal DTSA; for other jurisdictions see the full Trade Secret Laws by State index.

Does the District of Columbia have a trade secret law?

Yes. The District of Columbia enacted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1988, and the current codification appears at D.C. Code §§ 36-401 to 36-410, Title 36, Chapter 4 (DC Council, code.dccouncil.gov). Earlier printings cited the law at §§ 48-501 to 48-510; the current Title 36, Chapter 4 codification is the authoritative reference. The statute follows the UTSA in its definitions of trade secret and misappropriation, its remedies structure, and its preemption of conflicting common-law tort claims. DC courts apply the Act as the exclusive civil remedy for trade-secret misappropriation, replacing the prior patchwork of tort doctrines. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 layered a parallel federal cause of action on top without displacing DC's statute.

What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in the District of Columbia?

Under § 36-401, 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. The DC market's concentration of government contractors, lobbying firms, think tanks, and professional services organizations means that valuable proprietary information frequently takes the form of client lists, bid strategies, analytical methodologies, and policy proposals, all of which can qualify as trade secrets under this definition if secrecy measures are maintained.

Misappropriation under § 36-401 includes acquiring a trade secret with knowledge or reason to know that 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 through improper means, in breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or through accident or mistake where, before a material change of position, the person knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret acquired by accident or mistake. Section 36-401 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 the District of Columbia

A court may grant an injunction under § 36-402 to stop actual or threatened misappropriation. Upon application to the court, the injunction must terminate when the trade secret ceases to exist, although it may continue for a reasonable period to eliminate the commercial advantage from misappropriation. In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use on a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period the use could have been prohibited. Section 36-402(b) gives as an example a material, prejudicial change of position before knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation that makes a prohibitive injunction inequitable.

Section 36-403 allows recovery of actual damages for the loss caused by the misappropriation plus any unjust enrichment the defendant received beyond what is captured by actual loss, or, instead of damages measured by other methods, a reasonable royalty for unauthorized disclosure or use. When misappropriation was willful and malicious, the court may award exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory award under § 36-403. Under § 36-404, the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party for a bad-faith misappropriation claim, a motion to terminate an injunction made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation.

The limitations period under § 36-406 is three years from the date the misappropriation was discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. DC courts treat continuing misappropriation as a single claim running from the first act the owner discovered or should have discovered. Because this approach can cut off claims against ongoing theft if the first act was more than three years ago, investigating suspected misappropriation without delay is critical.

How the federal DTSA applies in the District of Columbia

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, effective May 11, 2016) provides DC trade-secret owners with a parallel federal civil 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 DC's state period. The federal statute does not preempt DC's law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so owners often bring both claims in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which sits in the same jurisdiction and has concurrent subject-matter jurisdiction over DTSA claims.

The DTSA adds two features not present in DC's statute. First, a federal court may issue an ex parte civil seizure order in extraordinary circumstances to prevent the 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 notify the employee of the statutory whistleblower immunity: employees cannot face civil or criminal liability under federal or state trade-secret law 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 a covered agreement forfeits exemplary damages and attorney fees against that employee under the DTSA, even for deliberate theft. Organizations based in DC, including contractors with federal agencies, should confirm that post-May 2016 agreements contain the required notice.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes District of Columbia trade-secret law under D.C. Code §§ 36-401 to 36-410 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 the District of Columbia before acting.

Related articles

• Trade Secret Laws by State
• Maryland Trade Secret Laws
• Virginia Trade Secret Laws
• Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?

Last updated: 2026-06-25.