Indiana
Indiana 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 9, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Indiana protects confidential business information under the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Ind. Code §§ 24-2-3-1 to 24-2-3-8, enacted in 1982. The statute closely 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 Indiana trade secret law, consult a lawyer licensed in Indiana. See also our Trade Secret Laws by State hub for additional state guides.
Does Indiana have a trade secret law?
Indiana enacted the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1982, codified at Ind. Code §§ 24-2-3-1 to 24-2-3-8. Indiana was an early UTSA adopter, and its statutory language tracks the Uniform Trade Secrets Act closely, which means Indiana courts can draw on interpretive decisions from other UTSA states. Under Ind. Code § 24-2-3-1(c), the IUTSA displaces conflicting tort, restitution, and other civil law remedies based on misappropriation of a trade secret, while leaving intact criminal law, contract claims, and other civil claims that do not arise from misappropriation. The statute provides a predictable civil framework for Indiana businesses seeking to protect sensitive commercial information.

What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Indiana?
Under Ind. Code § 24-2-3-2, a trade secret is information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, 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 proper means by other persons who can 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 information can include customer lists, pricing strategies, proprietary software, engineering designs, and manufacturing processes, provided both conditions are met. The reasonableness of secrecy measures is evaluated in context; a small business may satisfy the standard with simpler controls than a large enterprise, as long as the measures are consistent with the competitive sensitivity of the information.
Under Ind. Code § 24-2-3-2, misappropriation includes acquisition with knowledge or reason to know that a trade secret was acquired by improper means, and unauthorized disclosure or use under the statute’s improper-means, knowledge, or confidentiality-duty conditions. It also covers disclosure or use where, before a material change of position, the person knew or had reason to know the information was a trade secret acquired by accident or mistake. Improper means include theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, and espionage. Ind. Code § 24-2-3-2 does not expressly name reverse engineering or independent development. Independently learning information without improper acquisition, use, or breach of confidentiality does not itself establish misappropriation.
Remedies and the limitations period in Indiana
A successful plaintiff under the IUTSA may obtain the following relief:

- Injunction: Under Ind. Code § 24-2-3-3, courts may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation. In exceptional circumstances courts may allow continued use conditioned on payment of a reasonable royalty rather than issuing an outright prohibition.
- Damages: Under Ind. Code § 24-2-3-4, a plaintiff may recover actual loss caused by misappropriation plus unjust enrichment not already captured in the actual-loss award. When neither damages nor unjust enrichment are provable, the court may order a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period the use could have been prohibited (Ind. Code § 24-2-3-4(b)).
- Exemplary damages: Willful and malicious misappropriation supports an award of up to twice the award for actual loss and unjust enrichment under Ind. Code § 24-2-3-4(a).
- Attorney fees: Under Ind. Code § 24-2-3-5, 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 is three years (Ind. Code § 24-2-3-7). The period begins when the misappropriation was discovered or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, when it should have been discovered. A continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim, so the three-year window generally starts from the first discoverable act rather than from the most recent occurrence.
How the federal DTSA applies in Indiana
The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, has provided a federal civil remedy since May 2016 for misappropriation of trade secrets that relate to interstate or foreign commerce. The DTSA does not preempt Indiana law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so Indiana plaintiffs commonly plead both the DTSA and the IUTSA in a single action to access federal jurisdiction while preserving all available state remedies.
Key DTSA points for Indiana businesses include:
- A three-year federal limitations period from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), matching Indiana'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 and attorney fees for willful and malicious misappropriation, parallel to Indiana IUTSA remedies.
- 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 notice of this immunity in any confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 (§ 1833(b)(3)). Failure to include the notice forfeits the right to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees under the DTSA.
Federal criminal liability for trade secret theft may also arise under the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832.
This article provides general legal information about Indiana trade secret law as of 2026-06-25. It is not legal advice. Laws can change; consult a lawyer licensed in Indiana before taking action based on this information.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Idaho Trade Secret Laws
- Illinois Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret under Indiana law?
Under Ind. Code § 24-2-3-2, 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, customer lists, pricing strategies, and manufacturing processes can all qualify when both elements are satisfied.
How long do I have to sue for trade secret misappropriation in Indiana?
Ind. Code § 24-2-3-7 sets a three-year limitations period. The clock starts when the misappropriation was discovered or, through reasonable diligence, when it should have been discovered. Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim starting from the first discoverable act, so delay in filing can forfeit otherwise valid claims.
What damages can I recover in an Indiana trade secret case?
A prevailing plaintiff may recover actual losses plus unjust enrichment, or a reasonable royalty when neither damages nor unjust enrichment are provable, for no longer than the period the use could have been prohibited. Willful and malicious misappropriation can yield exemplary damages up to twice the award for actual loss and unjust enrichment under Ind. Code § 24-2-3-4(a). Attorney fees are available for willful and malicious misappropriation or bad-faith claims. Courts may also issue injunctions to stop ongoing or threatened misappropriation.
Do NDAs and reasonable security measures affect Indiana trade secret protection?
Yes. Reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy are a required element of the trade secret definition under Ind. Code § 24-2-3-2. Non-disclosure agreements, access controls, password protection, and employee training all support the reasonableness showing. Businesses that fail to implement meaningful protections risk having a court find that the information did not qualify as a trade secret, regardless of its commercial sensitivity.
Should I plead both the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the federal DTSA?
In most cases, yes. The DTSA provides access to federal court and adds tools such as ex parte seizure that are not available under state law alone. The IUTSA supplies parallel state remedies, and the DTSA does not preempt Indiana law. Because both carry the same three-year limitations period, there is generally no timing disadvantage to pleading both. Consult Indiana counsel to determine the best approach for your situation.
Updates
Corrected Indiana’s definition citations and reverse-engineering attribution, attorney-fee grounds, and royalty prerequisites.
Corrected the Indiana trade-secret preemption citation from Ind. Code section 24-2-3-8 (a narrow pre-1982 transitional clause) to the actual displacement provision, section 24-2-3-1(c).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
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.
Indiana Code, TITLE 24. TRADE REGULATION
§ 24-2-3-3Injunction against misappropriation; exceptional circumstancesIn force
Sec. 3. (a) 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 commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation. (b) If the court determines in exceptional circumstances 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 iga.in.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
- Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Ind. Code §§ 24-2-3-1 to 24-2-3-8(iga.in.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)
- Definitions(iga.in.gov).gov
- Damages for misappropriation and unjust enrichment; royalty; exemplary damages(iga.in.gov).gov
- Attorney's fees; conditions(iga.in.gov).gov