Idaho
Idaho 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. · 2 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Idaho businesses protect confidential commercial information under the Idaho Trade Secrets Act, Idaho Code §§ 48-801 to 48-807, enacted in 1981. The Act follows the Uniform Trade Secrets Act framework and sets a three-year limitations period running from the date misappropriation was or reasonably should have been discovered.
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. For guidance on a specific situation involving Idaho trade secret law, consult a lawyer licensed in Idaho. See also our Trade Secret Laws by State hub for additional state guides.
Does Idaho have a trade secret law?
Idaho enacted the Idaho Trade Secrets Act in 1981, codified at Idaho Code §§ 48-801 to 48-807. Idaho was among the early states to adopt legislation modeled on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, providing a consistent civil framework for protecting confidential business information. The Act supplies civil remedies for misappropriation and, under Idaho Code § 48-806, preempts conflicting tort, restitution, and other civil claims based on misappropriation of a trade secret. The preemption provision does not displace criminal statutes, contract claims, or other non-misappropriation causes of action. Because Idaho's definitions and remedies closely track the UTSA, case law from other UTSA states can offer persuasive guidance in Idaho courts.

What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Idaho?
Under Idaho Code § 48-801(5), a trade secret is information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, computer program, device, method, technique, or process, that satisfies two requirements:
- It derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by persons who could obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.
- It is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Qualifying examples include customer lists, pricing models, software source code, manufacturing processes, and proprietary research, as long as both prongs are met. Under Idaho Code § 48-801(2), misappropriation includes acquiring another’s trade secret while knowing or having reason to know it was acquired improperly. It also covers disclosure or use without express or implied consent by someone who used improper means, or who at disclosure or use knew or had reason to know the information came through improper means or a source or circumstances imposing a secrecy or limited-use duty. A further branch covers knowledge of a trade secret acquired by accident or mistake before a material change of position. Improper means under § 48-801(1) include theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, and industrial espionage. Section 48-801(1) does not expressly mention reverse engineering or independent development. Proper-means acquisition falls outside the improper-acquisition branch of § 48-801(2); independent work that does not acquire, disclose, or use another’s secret does not meet that definition.
Idaho Code § 48-801(4) separately defines computer program as information that can cause a computer to perform logical operations, can be input directly or indirectly, and prominently displays a copyright notice or other proprietary or confidential marking within or on its storage medium, regardless of medium or format. Software owners should account for this statutory marking requirement when evaluating the computer-program category. Section 48-801(5)(b) also makes trade secrets subject to public-agency disclosure according to chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code; trade-secret status alone does not resolve a public-records request.
Remedies and the limitations period in Idaho
A plaintiff who establishes misappropriation under the Idaho Trade Secrets Act may seek several forms of relief:

- Injunction: Under Idaho Code § 48-802, courts may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation. In exceptional circumstances a court may condition future use on payment of a reasonable royalty instead of issuing an absolute injunction.
- Damages: Idaho Code § 48-803 authorizes recovery of actual loss caused by misappropriation plus any unjust enrichment not already captured by actual-loss damages. Where damages are difficult to measure, courts may award a reasonable royalty for the period of unauthorized use.
- Exemplary damages: Willful and malicious misappropriation can support an award of up to twice the compensatory damages (Idaho Code § 48-803).
- Attorney fees: The Idaho Trade Secrets Act does not include an attorney's-fees provision for misappropriation claims. Prevailing parties generally bear their own fees absent a separate contractual or statutory basis.
The limitations period is three years (Idaho Code § 48-805). The period begins when the misappropriation was discovered or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, when it should have been discovered. Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim, and the limitations period starts from the first act that was or should have been discovered.
How the federal DTSA applies in Idaho
The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, has offered a federal civil remedy since May 2016 for misappropriation of trade secrets used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. The DTSA does not preempt Idaho law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so plaintiffs routinely plead both the DTSA and the Idaho Trade Secrets Act in a single action to access federal court while preserving all state remedies.
Key DTSA points for Idaho businesses include:
- A three-year federal limitations period from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), matching Idaho's state period.
- Ex parte seizure of property to prevent propagation of the secret, available in extraordinary circumstances (§ 1836(b)(2)).
- Exemplary damages up to twice for willful and malicious misappropriation, parallel to Idaho's UTSA remedy. The DTSA's attorney-fee award, however, has no state-law equivalent, since Idaho's UTSA does not include a fee-shifting provision.
- Whistleblower immunity: the DTSA protects individuals who disclose trade secrets to government officials or attorneys in connection with reporting a suspected legal violation (§ 1833(b)(1)). Employers must include a notice of this immunity in confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements signed or updated after May 11, 2016 (§ 1833(b)(3)). Omitting the notice forfeits the right to claim exemplary damages and attorney fees under the DTSA.
Federal criminal liability for trade secret theft can also arise under the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832.
This article provides general legal information about Idaho trade secret law as of 2026-06-25. It is not legal advice. Laws can change; consult a lawyer licensed in Idaho before taking action based on this information.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Illinois Trade Secret Laws
- Indiana Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret under Idaho law?
Under Idaho Code § 48-801(5), information qualifies as a trade secret if it has independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by those who could profit from it, and if the owner takes reasonable steps to maintain its secrecy. Formulas, software code, customer lists, pricing data, and manufacturing processes can qualify if the requirements are met. Section 48-801(4) also imposes a prominent copyright or proprietary/confidential marking requirement for its computer-program category, and § 48-801(5)(b) subjects public-agency disclosure to chapter 1, title 74.
How long do I have to sue for trade secret misappropriation in Idaho?
Idaho Code § 48-805 sets a three-year limitations period. The clock starts when the misappropriation was discovered or, through reasonable diligence, when it should have been discovered. Because continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim starting from the first discoverable act, waiting to learn more details rarely extends the deadline.
What damages can I recover in an Idaho trade secret case?
A prevailing plaintiff may recover actual losses plus unjust enrichment, or a reasonable royalty in place of those measures. Willful and malicious misappropriation can yield exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award. Idaho's UTSA does not include an attorney's-fees provision, so fee-shifting generally is not available under state law absent a separate contractual or statutory basis. Courts may also issue injunctions to stop threatened or ongoing misappropriation.
Do non-disclosure agreements and security measures matter in Idaho trade secret cases?
Yes. Reasonable measures to maintain secrecy are a required element of the trade secret definition under Idaho Code § 48-801(5). Non-disclosure agreements, restricted-access controls, password protection, and employee confidentiality training all support the reasonableness showing. Without evidence of protective measures, a court may conclude the information was not a legally protectable trade secret.
Should I plead both the Idaho Trade Secrets Act and the federal DTSA?
In most cases, yes. The DTSA provides access to federal court and its own remedies, including ex parte seizure. The Idaho Trade Secrets Act supplies parallel state remedies, and the DTSA does not preempt Idaho law. Pleading both maximizes available forums and remedies. Consult Idaho counsel to evaluate which venue and claims best suit your facts.
Updates
Corrected Idaho’s statutory definitions and added computer-program marking and public-agency disclosure qualifications.
Removed a fabricated attorney's-fees remedy that does not exist under Idaho's trade secret statute and corrected the preemption citation from Idaho Code section 48-807 (Short Title) to the actual clause, section 48-806.
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.
Idaho Code
§ 48-802Injunctive reliefIn force
48-802. Injunctive relief. (1) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court, 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…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.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
§ 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: Trade Secret Laws by State: UTSA & DTSA (2026), Georgia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Florida Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Idaho Trade Secrets Act, Idaho Code §§ 48-801 to 48-807(legislature.idaho.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)
- Idaho Code § 48-801, definitions and public-agency disclosure(legislature.idaho.gov).gov