North Dakota
North Dakota Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 2 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
North Dakota adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act as the North Dakota Uniform Trade Secrets Act, N.D. Cent. Code §§ 47-25.1-01 to 47-25.1-08, enacted in 1983. The statute follows the Uniform Law Commission's model act and sets a three-year limitations period from discovery of misappropriation under § 47-25.1-06. Both injunctive and monetary remedies are available, including up to twice the compensatory damages for willful and malicious 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 a nationwide overview, see Trade Secret Laws by State.
Does North Dakota have a trade secret law?
North Dakota enacted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1983, codified at N.D. Cent. Code §§ 47-25.1-01 to 47-25.1-08 (ndlegis.gov). The statute adopts the Uniform Law Commission's model act and provides a comprehensive framework for civil trade-secret protection in North Dakota. Courts in North Dakota may consult UTSA commentary and decisions from other UTSA-adopting states when interpreting the North Dakota statute. Section 47-25.1-07 preempts conflicting civil tort and restitution claims based on trade-secret misappropriation, leaving the statute as the primary state civil avenue for these disputes. Criminal trade-secret theft may be separately pursued under the federal Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832.
What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in North Dakota?
Section 47-25.1-01(4) of the North Dakota Century Code 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, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.
Second, the information must be the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Both conditions must be met. Common types of qualifying information include customer and vendor lists, pricing formulas, software source code, manufacturing processes, and proprietary business strategies, provided the owner has treated the information as confidential in actual practice.
Section 47-25.1-01(2) defines misappropriation as acquiring a trade secret by improper means, such as theft, bribery, misrepresentation, or breach of a duty of confidentiality, or using or disclosing a trade secret without consent when the person knew or had reason to know the secret was improperly obtained. Section 47-25.1-01(1) defines improper means and does not include reverse engineering of a lawfully obtained product or independent development within that definition, so under general trade-secret principles a competitor who arrives at the same information through legitimate work has not violated North Dakota law.
Remedies and the limitations period in North Dakota
Section 47-25.1-02 authorizes courts to grant injunctions to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation. In exceptional circumstances, when a prohibition would cause undue hardship because the defendant has already incorporated the information into an ongoing product or process, the court may instead impose a reasonable royalty obligation for a defined period.
Section 47-25.1-03 governs monetary relief. A plaintiff may recover: (a) actual loss caused by the misappropriation plus any unjust enrichment received by the defendant that is not captured in the actual-loss figure, or (b) a reasonable royalty for the period during which misappropriation occurred when neither actual loss nor unjust enrichment is measurable. When misappropriation is willful and malicious, the court may additionally award exemplary damages not exceeding twice the compensatory award.
Section 47-25.1-04 permits a court to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party when a claim or motion is made or asserted in bad faith, or when willful and malicious misappropriation is established.
The limitations period under § 47-25.1-06 is three years from the date misappropriation was discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim accruing from the first act the owner discovered or should have discovered. Prompt investigation after suspecting theft helps preserve the claim before the three-year window closes.
How the federal DTSA applies in North Dakota
The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, has provided a federal civil remedy for trade-secret misappropriation since May 11, 2016. The DTSA requires the trade secret to relate to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce, a condition that most North Dakota business trade secrets satisfy. Because the DTSA expressly does not preempt state law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), North Dakota claimants may plead both the state Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the DTSA in a single lawsuit.
Two DTSA-specific features supplement North Dakota state remedies. First, a federal court may issue a civil ex parte seizure order in extraordinary circumstances to prevent the dissemination of a misappropriated secret before the defendant receives notice (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)). Second, the DTSA's three-year limitations period from discovery (§ 1836(d)) matches North Dakota's three-year period under § 47-25.1-06.
Employers must also address the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3). Any confidentiality or employment agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must inform the employee that disclosing a trade secret to a government official or attorney solely to report a suspected legal violation carries no civil or criminal liability under federal or state trade-secret law. An employer who omits this notice from a covered agreement forfeits DTSA exemplary damages and attorney fees against that individual, even when the misappropriation was deliberate.
Protecting trade secrets in North Dakota: practical steps
Because § 47-25.1-01(4) requires reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy as a definitional element of trade-secret status, documented protective practices are both a legal necessity and a practical priority. Courts assess whether the measures taken were proportionate to the commercial value of the information and the risk of disclosure. Common protective steps include:
- Written nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements with employees, contractors, and business partners, updated after May 11, 2016 to include the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice
- Role-based digital access controls and encryption for systems and files containing sensitive information
- Physical security measures for facilities and paper records holding proprietary data
- Consistent and visible marking of documents and materials as confidential or proprietary
- Structured employee offboarding procedures covering device return, credential revocation, and written reminders of post-employment confidentiality obligations
North Dakota's energy, agriculture, and manufacturing sectors frequently depend on trade-secret protection for extraction techniques, input formulas, and supply-chain strategies. Consistent documentation of security practices strengthens the reasonable-efforts element if a claim is ever litigated.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes North Dakota trade-secret law under N.D. Cent. Code §§ 47-25.1-01 to 47-25.1-08 and the federal DTSA as of 2026-06-25 and does not address your specific facts. Trade-secret disputes are fact-intensive and deadlines are strict. Consult an attorney licensed in North Dakota before acting.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Minnesota Trade Secret Laws
- South Dakota Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret under North Dakota law?
Under N.D. Cent. Code § 47-25.1-01(4), information qualifies as a trade secret if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by those who can benefit from its use or disclosure, and the owner takes reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. Customer lists, pricing models, software source code, manufacturing processes, and proprietary formulas can all qualify if both conditions are met. Reverse engineering of a lawfully obtained product and independent development are not improper means under § 47-25.1-01(1), so they are generally lawful and do not constitute misappropriation.
How long do I have to sue for trade secret misappropriation in North Dakota?
Three years from when misappropriation was discovered or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence, under N.D. Cent. Code § 47-25.1-06. Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim accruing from the first act the owner discovered or should have known about. Investigating suspected theft promptly helps preserve the claim before the limitations window closes.
What remedies does the North Dakota Uniform Trade Secrets Act provide?
Courts may award injunctions under § 47-25.1-02, actual damages plus unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty under § 47-25.1-03, and exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award for willful and malicious misappropriation. Attorney fees are available under § 47-25.1-04 when misappropriation is willful and malicious or when a claim is brought in bad faith.
Do North Dakota confidentiality agreements need a DTSA whistleblower notice?
Yes. Any nondisclosure or confidentiality agreement with an employee or contractor that was signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must include the whistleblower-immunity notice required by 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3). An employer who omits this notice loses the right to recover DTSA exemplary damages and attorney fees from that individual, even when the misappropriation is deliberate.
Can I bring both a North Dakota trade secret claim and a federal DTSA claim?
Yes. The DTSA does not preempt North Dakota law under 18 U.S.C. § 1838, so a claimant may plead both the state Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the DTSA in a single lawsuit. The federal claim adds the civil ex parte seizure remedy for extraordinary situations and is often advantageous when misappropriation crosses state lines. Both frameworks carry a three-year limitations period from discovery.
Updates
Corrected the North Dakota UTSA enactment year to 1983.
Corrected the North Dakota trade secret statute of limitations and preemption citations, which each pointed one section off, and reworded an overstated claim that the statute expressly declares reverse engineering lawful.
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.
North Dakota Century Code
§ 47-25.1-02Injunctive reliefIn force
Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court, an injunction must be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation. 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 a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable. 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 ndlegis.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
§ 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
§ 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: Delaware Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Massachusetts Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Michigan Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- North Dakota Uniform Trade Secrets Act, N.D. Cent. Code §§ 47-25.1-01 to 47-25.1-08(ndlegis.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)
- 1983 North Dakota Session Laws, chapter 508, Uniform Trade Secrets Act(ndlegis.gov).gov