Maine
Maine 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. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Maine's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, §§ 1541 to 1548, has protected proprietary business information in Maine since 1987. A civil claim for misappropriation must be brought within four years of discovering the wrong (§ 1547), and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act provides a concurrent federal remedy without displacing the state statute.
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 a nationwide overview, see Trade Secret Laws by State.
Does Maine have a trade secret law?
Maine enacted the Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1987, codified at Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, §§ 1541 to 1548. The statute follows the framework developed by the Uniform Law Commission and governs civil claims by any person or entity whose trade secrets are misappropriated in Maine. It defines both trade secret and misappropriation, prescribes available remedies, and fixes the four-year limitations period. Under § 1548, the statute displaces conflicting state tort and restitution claims that would otherwise apply to trade-secret disputes. It preserves contractual remedies, other civil remedies not based on trade-secret misappropriation, and criminal remedies; § 1548 also preserves legally required disclosures and the Maine Tort Claims Act. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act applies alongside Maine's statute without preempting it (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so a claimant may assert both sets of claims in a single lawsuit and take advantage of whichever forum best suits the facts.

What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Maine?
The Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, §§ 1541 to 1548, defines a trade secret as information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that satisfies two conditions. First, the information must derive independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by proper means by others who can profit from its disclosure or use. Second, the owner must have made efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Common categories include customer and supplier lists, manufacturing processes, source code, pricing strategies, and proprietary formulas.
Misappropriation under the Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act means acquiring a trade secret through improper means, such as theft, bribery, espionage, or breach of a duty of confidentiality, or using or disclosing it without consent when the person knew or had reason to know the secret was improperly obtained. Reverse engineering a product obtained through proper means and independent development of equivalent information are lawful under the Act and do not amount to misappropriation.
Remedies and the limitations period in Maine
The Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act provides several categories of relief for successful claimants:

- Injunctions: Under § 1543, a court may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation for as long as the information would otherwise remain protectable. In exceptional circumstances, a court may permit ongoing use conditioned on payment of a reasonable royalty.
- Damages: Section 1544(1) allows recovery of actual loss from misappropriation plus unjust enrichment of the defendant not already captured in that loss, or, as an alternative, a reasonable royalty for the period of unauthorized use.
- Exemplary damages: When misappropriation is willful and malicious, the court may award exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award (§ 1544(2)).
- Attorney fees: The court may award reasonable 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 (§ 1545).
The limitations period is four years. Under § 1547, an action must be brought within four years after the misappropriation is discovered or should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim accruing from the first act that was or reasonably should have been discovered. Because this rule compresses the window, businesses should investigate and document suspected misappropriation as soon as it comes to their attention.
How the federal DTSA applies in Maine
The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, creates a federal civil action for trade-secret misappropriation when the secret relates to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. Because the DTSA expressly preserves all state remedies (18 U.S.C. § 1838), Maine businesses may plead both DTSA and state claims together and select the forum and procedural tools that fit the situation.
The DTSA provides one remedy not available under Maine's statute: a civil ex parte seizure order under § 1836(b)(2), which enables a court to order immediate seizure of materials containing a trade secret before the defendant receives notice, in extraordinary circumstances where other injunctive relief would be inadequate. The DTSA's three-year limitations period from discovery (§ 1836(d)) differs from Maine's four-year period under § 1547.
Maine employers and businesses should review their nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements. Any such agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must contain the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice required by 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3). An employer that omits the notice forfeits the ability to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees from that employee under the DTSA, even when the misappropriation is willful.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes Maine and federal trade secret law as of 2026-06-25 and does not address your specific facts. Trade-secret disputes are fact-intensive and filing deadlines are strict. Consult an attorney licensed in Maine before taking action.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Louisiana Trade Secret Laws
- Maryland Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret in Maine?
Under the Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, §§ 1541 to 1548), information qualifies 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 reasonable measures to maintain secrecy. Customer lists, formulas, source code, and pricing models are common examples. Reverse engineering and independent development are lawful and do not constitute misappropriation.
How long do I have to sue for trade secret misappropriation in Maine?
Four years from when the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, under Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1547. Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim accruing from the first act that was or should have been discovered with reasonable diligence. Prompt investigation when misappropriation is suspected helps preserve the claim.
What remedies does Maine's Uniform Trade Secrets Act provide?
Maine's statute authorizes injunctions to stop ongoing or threatened misappropriation (§ 1543), actual damages plus unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty (§ 1544(1)), exemplary damages up to twice the award for willful and malicious misappropriation (§ 1544(2)), and attorney fees for willful, malicious, or bad-faith conduct (§ 1545).
Do Maine NDAs need to include a DTSA whistleblower notice?
Yes. Any nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must notify the employee or contractor of the DTSA whistleblower immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b). An employer that omits this notice loses the right to recover exemplary damages and attorney fees from that individual under the DTSA, even for willful misappropriation.
Can I bring both DTSA and Maine trade secret claims in the same lawsuit?
Yes. The DTSA does not preempt Maine's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so a trade secret owner may assert both claims together. Doing so provides access to the DTSA's civil ex parte seizure remedy while also relying on the Maine statute's preemption of competing state tort claims (§ 1548). Maine claims have a four-year limitations period from discovery or when discovery should have occurred with reasonable diligence; the DTSA period is three years under the same discovery standard.
Updates
Corrected Maine’s four-year filing deadline, the DTSA comparison, preserved remedies, and attorney-fee grounds.
Corrected every internal statute pinpoint in the remedies and preemption discussion, which had been shifted by one section number relative to Maine's actual Uniform Trade Secrets Act chapter layout.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the trade-secret definition, misappropriation, and reverse-engineering citations: Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10 §1541 is the Act's short-title section, not a definitions section, so those pincites now reference the Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act generally instead of a specific subsection.
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.
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 10: COMMERCE AND TRADE, Part 4: TRADEMARKS AND NAMES, Chapter 302: UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT
§ 1544DamagesIn force
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. [PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW).] 1. Measurement of damages. Damages may 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. 2. Willful, malicious misappropriation. If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not to exceed twice any award made under subsection 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
§ 1541Short titleIn force
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Trade Secrets Act." [PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW).]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 27 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2001, 770 A.2d 97)“…crets in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), 10 M.R.S.A. §§ 1541-1548 (1997). We affirm the judgment.…”
- Spottiswoode v. Levine (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 1999, 730 A.2d 166)“…ine did not violate the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), 10 M.R.S.A. §§ 1541-1548 (1997). We affirm the judgment ent…”
- Northeast Coating Technologies, Inc. v. Vacuum Metallurgical Co. (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 1996, 684 A.2d 1322)“…trade secret” under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), 10 M.R.S.A. §§ 1541-1548 (Supp.1995). We need not engage in…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 1547Statute of limitationsIn force
An action for misappropriation must be brought within 4 years after the misappropriation is discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. For the purposes of this section, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim. [PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW).]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.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
- Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, §§ 1541 to 1548(legislature.maine.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)
- Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1547: filing deadline(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1548: preserved remedies(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1545: attorney fees(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 1836(d): federal filing deadline(uscode.house.gov).gov