Kansas
Kansas 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
Kansas adopted the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, codified at Kan. Stat. §§ 60-3320 to 60-3330, in 1981, making Kansas one of the earliest states in the country to enact UTSA-based trade-secret protection. A civil claim must be filed within three years of the date misappropriation was or, by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered (Kan. Stat. § 60-3325).
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 your specific situation, see Trade Secret Laws by State and consult an attorney licensed in Kansas.
Does Kansas have a trade secret law?
Yes. Kansas enacted the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1981, codified at Kan. Stat. §§ 60-3320 to 60-3330. Kansas was among the first states to adopt the UTSA after its initial promulgation, establishing a framework for trade-secret protection that has remained substantially unchanged. The statute covers all qualifying forms of confidential business information, from formulas and processes to customer lists, financial data, and software source code, without requiring any registration or government filing. Kan. Stat. § 60-3326 preempts conflicting civil remedies under Kansas law when those claims rest on the same facts as a trade-secret misappropriation claim, directing those disputes through the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Kansas?
Kan. Stat. § 60-3320 defines a trade secret as 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 or readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons who can profit from its disclosure or use; and (2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Both elements must be established. A single formula, a compiled customer list, or an internal pricing methodology can qualify as long as the owner actively protects it and the secrecy gives the business a meaningful competitive advantage. Once information enters the public domain by any route, trade-secret protection ends permanently.
Misappropriation under Kan. Stat. § 60-3320 takes two forms. First, acquisition of a trade secret by improper means, including theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or industrial espionage. Second, disclosure or use of a trade secret without consent by a person who acquired it by improper means, or who knew or had reason to know it was obtained in breach of a confidential relationship.
Lawful reverse engineering and independent development generally do not establish misappropriation when they involve no improper acquisition, use, or breach of confidentiality. Kan. Stat. § 60-3320 defines improper means but does not expressly name either practice as a defense.
Remedies and the limitations period in Kansas
Kan. Stat. § 60-3321 authorizes injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation for the duration of the trade secret's protectable life. Where equitable circumstances make an injunction inappropriate, the court may instead order that the misappropriator pay a reasonable royalty for continued use.
Monetary remedies under Kan. Stat. § 60-3322 include actual damages for losses attributable to the misappropriation, plus any unjust enrichment not already captured by the damages figure, or a reasonable royalty as an alternative measure. When misappropriation was willful and malicious, Kan. Stat. § 60-3322 authorizes exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory award. Under Kan. Stat. § 60-3323, 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.
Kansas's civil limitations period is three years (Kan. Stat. § 60-3325), running from the date misappropriation was discovered or, by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. The period begins from the first act of continuing misappropriation that the owner discovered or should have discovered, not from the most recent act, so prompt investigation is important.
How the federal DTSA applies in Kansas
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839) provides Kansas businesses with a parallel federal civil cause of action when the trade secret relates to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce. The DTSA does not preempt Kansas law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), and Kansas owners commonly plead state and federal claims together in a single lawsuit.
Unique DTSA tools available in Kansas federal courts include an ex parte civil seizure application in extraordinary circumstances to recover or preserve misappropriated materials before they can be destroyed or transferred (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)). The federal limitations period is also three years from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)).
A specific compliance obligation falls on Kansas employers: any confidentiality agreement, nondisclosure agreement, or employment contract governing confidential information that was signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must include the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice set out in 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3). Failing to include this notice forfeits the right to recover exemplary damages and attorney fees from that employee under the DTSA, even when the misappropriation was willful. The federal Economic Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832) also criminalizes trade-secret theft in Kansas.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes Kansas trade-secret law as of 2026-06-25 and does not address your specific facts. Trade-secret disputes are fact-intensive and limitations periods are strict. Consult an attorney licensed in Kansas before taking action.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Iowa Trade Secret Laws
- Kentucky Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret under Kansas law?
Under Kan. Stat. § 60-3320, information qualifies as a trade secret if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by others who could profit from it, and the owner takes efforts reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Examples include customer databases, manufacturing processes, source code, formulas, and pricing strategies. Protection ends permanently once the information enters the public domain.
How long do I have to file a trade secret claim in Kansas?
Three years from the date misappropriation was discovered or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence (Kan. Stat. § 60-3325). For continuing misappropriation, the period runs from the first act the owner discovered or should have discovered, not from the most recent act. The federal DTSA claim carries the same three-year limitations period (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), so prompt action is critical regardless of which law you rely on.
What remedies are available for trade secret misappropriation in Kansas?
Injunctions to halt actual or threatened misappropriation (Kan. Stat. § 60-3321), actual damages plus unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty (Kan. Stat. § 60-3322), exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award for willful and malicious misappropriation, and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party for willful and malicious misappropriation, a bad-faith misappropriation claim, or a motion to terminate an injunction made or resisted in bad faith (Kan. Stat. § 60-3323). Federal DTSA remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3) can be sought alongside Kansas claims.
Do NDAs and confidentiality agreements strengthen a Kansas trade secret claim?
Yes. Written confidentiality agreements help establish the reasonable-secrecy-measures element under Kan. Stat. § 60-3320 and make a misappropriation claim easier to prove. Any NDA or employment agreement governing confidential information that was signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must include the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice (18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)). Omitting it forfeits federal exemplary damages and attorney fees from that employee, even for willful theft.
How does the federal DTSA work alongside Kansas trade secret law?
The DTSA (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839) creates a parallel federal claim when the secret relates to interstate or foreign commerce. It does not preempt Kansas law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so owners can plead Kan. Stat. §§ 60-3320 to 60-3330 and the DTSA in the same suit. DTSA-only tools include civil ex parte seizure (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)) and the employer whistleblower notice obligation. Both laws share the UTSA-derived definition and a three-year limitations period.
Updates
Corrected Kansas’s reverse-engineering statutory attribution and attorney-fee grounds across repeated summaries.
Corrected the Kansas trade-secret lawsuit deadline (the real three-year statute of limitations is Kan. Stat. section 60-3325, not 60-3326) and the preemption citation (the real clause is section 60-3326, not 60-3328), and fixed a dead government statute link.
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.
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 60: PROCEDURE, CIVIL
§ 60-3321Misappropriation of trade secret; injunctive or other protective relief.In force
(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) In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time for which use could have been prohibited. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable. (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 ksrevisor.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
§ 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, Delaware 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: Georgia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Florida Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Idaho Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Kan. Stat. §§ 60-3320 to 60-3330(ksrevisor.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)
- Statutory definitions and attorney-fee grounds(www.ksrevisor.gov).gov