New Mexico
New Mexico 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. · 1 primary source cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

New Mexico protects confidential business information under the New Mexico Uniform Trade Secrets Act (NMUTSA), N.M. Stat. §§ 57-3A-1 to 57-3A-7, adopted in 1989. The NMUTSA closely tracks the national Uniform Trade Secrets Act model and provides a three-year limitations period measured from discovery of the misappropriation.
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 New Mexico trade secret law, consult a lawyer licensed in New Mexico. See also our Trade Secret Laws by State hub for additional state guides.
Does New Mexico have a trade secret law?
New Mexico enacted the New Mexico Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1989, codified at N.M. Stat. §§ 57-3A-1 to 57-3A-7. The NMUTSA is directly modeled on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act developed by the Uniform Law Commission, giving New Mexico businesses protections that are largely consistent with those available in most other UTSA states. The NMUTSA consists of N.M. Stat. §§ 57-3A-1 through 57-3A-7 and contains no displacement or savings provision corresponding to the uniform act's effect-on-other-law section. Whether a parallel common-law claim can proceed requires analysis of applicable case law and the claim itself, not reliance on a statutory displacement clause. New Mexico courts have applied the NMUTSA across a variety of business contexts, from technology companies protecting source code to employers protecting client relationships and proprietary pricing information.

What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in New Mexico?
Under N.M. Stat. § 57-3A-2, a trade secret is information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that meets two requirements:
- It derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being 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.
The definition broadly covers technical and commercial information alike. Commonly protected items include software algorithms, manufacturing processes, proprietary pricing models, supplier and customer lists, and internal business strategies, provided both the secrecy and reasonable-measures elements are satisfied. Courts look at the totality of measures a business employs: written agreements, digital access controls, limited internal distribution, and physical security measures all contribute to establishing that reasonable efforts were made.
Under N.M. Stat. § 57-3A-2, misappropriation includes acquiring another's trade secret knowing or having reason to know it was obtained by improper means. It also includes disclosure or use without express or implied consent by a person who used improper means to acquire it; the statute separately covers specified knowledge, confidentiality-duty and accident-or-mistake circumstances. Improper means include theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a confidentiality duty, and espionage. The statute does not expressly name reverse engineering or independent development as safe harbors; the distinction between proper and improper means supports considering how information was obtained, including any confidentiality or use restrictions.
Remedies and the limitations period in New Mexico
The NMUTSA provides the following remedies:

- Injunction: Under N.M. Stat. § 57-3A-3, courts may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation. An injunction may allow continued use conditioned on payment of a reasonable royalty when an absolute prohibition would be inequitable.
- Damages: Under N.M. Stat. § 57-3A-4, a plaintiff may recover actual loss caused by misappropriation plus unjust enrichment not accounted for by actual loss. In lieu of damages measured by other methods, damages may be measured by a reasonable royalty for unauthorized disclosure or use.
- Exemplary damages: For willful and malicious misappropriation, the court may award additional punitive damages up to twice the award under Subsection A of N.M. Stat. § 57-3A-4.
- Attorney fees: The court may award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees if misappropriation is willful and malicious, a misappropriation claim is made in bad faith, or a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith (N.M. Stat. § 57-3A-5).
The limitations period in New Mexico is three years from the date the misappropriation was discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered (N.M. Stat. § 57-3A-7). This matches the standard UTSA period. New Mexico courts apply the discovery rule: the period begins when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the misappropriation, not when the harm is fully quantifiable.
How the federal DTSA applies in New Mexico
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 products or services used in interstate or foreign commerce. The DTSA does not preempt the NMUTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1838), and New Mexico plaintiffs routinely plead both statutes in federal court actions to access federal jurisdiction while preserving state remedies.
Key DTSA considerations for New Mexico businesses include:
- A three-year federal limitations period from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), which matches the NMUTSA period, so state and federal deadlines align.
- Ex parte seizure orders to prevent dissemination of the secret in extraordinary circumstances (§ 1836(b)(2)).
- Exemplary damages and attorney fees for willful and malicious misappropriation, parallel to New Mexico state remedies.
- Whistleblower immunity: the DTSA immunizes individuals who disclose trade secrets to government officials or attorneys in connection with a suspected legal violation (§ 1833(b)(1)). Employers must include 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 exposure may also arise under the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832, for trade secret theft tied to foreign governments or interstate and foreign commerce.
This article provides general legal information about New Mexico trade secret law as of 2026-06-25. It is not legal advice. Laws can change; consult a lawyer licensed in New Mexico before taking action based on this information.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- New Jersey Trade Secret Laws
- New York Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret under New Mexico law?
Under N.M. Stat. § 57-3A-2, a trade secret is information of any type that derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by those who could profit from it, and that the owner protects through reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. Examples include formulas, software code, manufacturing processes, business plans, customer databases, and pricing strategies. Both elements must be satisfied: economic value from secrecy and actual protective measures.
How long do I have to sue for trade secret misappropriation in New Mexico?
New Mexico provides three years from the date the misappropriation was discovered or, through reasonable diligence, should have been discovered (N.M. Stat. § 57-3A-7). This matches the standard UTSA limitations period. A parallel DTSA federal claim also carries a three-year discovery period, so state and federal deadlines align. Prompt action after discovering possible misappropriation is advisable, as gathering evidence becomes more difficult over time.
What damages are available in a New Mexico trade secret case?
A plaintiff may recover actual loss plus unjust enrichment not already included in actual loss, or a reasonable royalty in lieu of other damages measures. For willful and malicious misappropriation, the court may award additional punitive damages up to twice that damages award. The court may award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees if misappropriation is willful and malicious, a misappropriation claim is made in bad faith, or a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith (N.M. Stat. § 57-3A-5). Courts may also enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation.
Are NDAs and confidentiality agreements important for trade secret protection in New Mexico?
Yes. Non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements are strong evidence of the reasonable-measures requirement under N.M. Stat. § 57-3A-2. Agreements alone are not sufficient, however, if the underlying information does not independently derive value from its secrecy. A comprehensive protection program typically combines written agreements with access controls, marking of confidential materials, and consistent enforcement of confidentiality policies.
Can I bring both a New Mexico UTSA claim and a federal DTSA claim at the same time?
Yes. The DTSA expressly does not preempt state trade secret law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so both claims may be pleaded simultaneously. Filing both provides access to federal court, DTSA-specific tools such as ex parte seizure, and the full range of New Mexico remedies. The limitations periods are the same under both statutes, which simplifies timing. Consult a New Mexico attorney to evaluate the best forum and claims for your situation.
Updates
Clarified state trade secret rules, remedies, and applicable deadlines.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected two swapped NMUTSA section pincites: the three-year statute-of-limitations text (confirmed at N.M. Stat. §57-3A-7) had been mislabeled §57-3A-6 in three places, and the displacement/preemption-of-tort-claims statement (which the bundle shows is not §57-3A-7, that section being the SOL) is now cited to the Act generally.
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.
New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 57
§ 57-3A-3Injunctive reliefIn 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 a court order.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
§ 57-3A-5Attorneys' feesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. The court of proper jurisdiction may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party if: (1) a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith; (2) a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith; or (3) willful and malicious misappropriation exists.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
§ 57-3A-7Statute of limitationsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
An action for misappropriation must be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. For the purpose of this section, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
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
§ 1831Economic espionageIn forcecited in 24 of our articles
Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly— steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret; without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret; receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3); or conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of 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 not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 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 249 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 2016, 844 F.3d 1024)“…ade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq. When Nosal left Korn/Ferry,…”
- United States v. Aleynikov (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2012, 676 F.3d 71)“…EEA contains two operative provisions. The first section ( 18 U.S.C. § 1831 (a)), which is not charged in the indic…”
- United States v. Chung (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2011, 659 F.3d 815)“…of violating the Economic Espi- onage Act of 1996 (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a)(1), (3); on one count of conspiring…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: District of Columbia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Connecticut Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Delaware Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- New Mexico Uniform Trade Secrets Act, N.M. Stat. §§ 57-3A-1 to 57-3A-7(nmonesource.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)
- New Mexico Uniform Trade Secrets Act, N.M. Stat. §§ 57-3A-1 to 57-3A-7(www.nmonesource.com).gov