Maryland
Maryland 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. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Maryland's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 11-1201 to 11-1209, has governed trade secret protection in Maryland since 1989. A civil claim for misappropriation must be brought within three years of discovering the wrong (§ 11-1206), 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 Maryland have a trade secret law?
Maryland enacted the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1989, effective July 1, 1989, codified at Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 11-1201 to 11-1209. The statute follows the Uniform Law Commission's UTSA framework and governs civil claims by any person or entity whose trade secrets are misappropriated in Maryland. It defines trade secret and misappropriation, prescribes available remedies, and fixes the three-year limitations period. Under § 11-1207, the MUTSA displaces conflicting state tort and restitution claims that would otherwise govern trade-secret disputes, making it the primary state-law vehicle for these cases in Maryland courts. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act runs alongside the MUTSA without preempting it (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so a claimant may assert both state and federal claims in the same lawsuit.

What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Maryland?
Md. Code, Com. Law § 11-1201(e) defines a trade secret as information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that meets 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 § 11-1201(c) includes acquiring another’s trade secret while knowing or having reason to know it was acquired through improper means, such as theft, bribery, espionage, or breach of a confidentiality duty. It also covers unauthorized disclosure or use under the conditions in § 11-1201(c)(2), including use by someone who acquired it improperly or knew or had reason to know of the improper source or secrecy duty. Section 11-1201(b) lists improper means but does not expressly address reverse engineering or independent development. Proper acquisition falls outside the improper-acquisition branch of § 11-1201(c); independent work that does not acquire, disclose, or use another’s secret does not meet that definition.
Remedies and the limitations period in Maryland
The Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act provides several categories of relief for successful claimants:

- Injunctions: Under § 11-1202, a court may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation for as long as would be necessary to eliminate the commercial advantage derived from the misappropriation. In exceptional circumstances a court may permit ongoing use conditioned on payment of a reasonable royalty.
- Damages: Section 11-1203(b)-(c) allows recovery of actual loss from misappropriation plus unjust enrichment of the defendant not 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 (§ 11-1203(d)).
- Attorney fees: Under § 11-1204, the court may award reasonable fees to the prevailing party for a misappropriation claim made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation.
The limitations period is three years. Under § 11-1206, an action must be brought within three 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 theft as soon as it comes to their attention.
How the federal DTSA applies in Maryland
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), Maryland businesses may plead both DTSA and MUTSA claims together and select the forum and procedural tools that best fit the circumstances.
The DTSA provides one remedy not available under Maryland's statute: a civil ex parte seizure order under § 1836(b)(2), which allows 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)) matches Maryland's under § 11-1206.
Maryland employers should also 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 this notice forfeits the ability to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees from that employee under the DTSA, even when the misappropriation is willful and malicious.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes Maryland 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 Maryland before taking action.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Maine Trade Secret Laws
- Massachusetts Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret in Maryland?
Under Md. Code, Com. Law § 11-1201(e), 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 Maryland?
Three years from when the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, under Md. Code, Com. Law § 11-1206. 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 Maryland's Uniform Trade Secrets Act provide?
The MUTSA authorizes injunctions to stop ongoing or threatened misappropriation (§ 11-1202), actual damages plus unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty (§ 11-1203(b)-(c)), exemplary damages up to twice the award for willful and malicious misappropriation (§ 11-1203(d)), and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party for a bad-faith misappropriation claim, an injunction-termination motion made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation (§ 11-1204).
Do Maryland 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 Maryland trade secret claims in the same lawsuit?
Yes. The DTSA does not preempt Maryland'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 relying on the MUTSA's preemption of competing state tort claims (§ 11-1207). Both sets of claims share a three-year limitations period from discovery.
Updates
Corrected Maryland remedy citations, statutory misappropriation wording, and the Act’s effective date.
Corrected the statute of limitations and preemption citations, which were swapped, and repointed the dead official citation link to a live mirror.
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.
Maryland Code, Commercial Law Article
§ 11-1203In force
§11–1203. (a) 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. (b) Damages under this subtitle may include: (1) The actual loss caused by misappropriation; and (2) The unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. (c) 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. (d) If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (a) of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
§ 11-1201In force
§11–1201. (a) In this subtitle the following words have the meanings indicated. (b) “Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. (c) “Misappropriation” means the: (1) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who: (i) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (ii) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that the person’s knowledge of the trade secret was: 1. Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; 2. Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 40 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- AirFacts, Inc. v. Diego De Amezaga (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2018, 909 F.3d 84)“…F. Atkinson Co., 996 F.2d 655, 660 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Md. Code Com. Law § 11-1201(c)(1)). Under the MUTSA, a “tra…”
- Padco Advisors, Inc. v. Omdahl (District Court, D. Maryland 2002, 179 F. Supp. 2d 600)“…a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use .... Md.Code Ann., Com. Law § 11-1201 (1989). Omdahl does not dispute that he…”
- NaturaLawn of America, Inc. v. West Group, LLC (District Court, D. Maryland 2007, 484 F. Supp. 2d 392)“…1125 (a), the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 11-1201 et. seq. (2006), and Mary…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 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: Alabama Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Arizona Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Arkansas Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 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: Alaska Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, California Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Colorado 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), District of Columbia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Connecticut 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
- Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Md. Code, Com. Law §§ 11-1201 to 11-1209(law.justia.com)
- 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)
- Md. Code, Com. Law § 11-1201, definitions(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Com. Law § 11-1203, damages(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Maryland Court of Appeals opinion, No. 111, September Term 2003, MUTSA history(www.mdcourts.gov).gov
- Md. Code, Com. Law § 11-1204(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov