Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania 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. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Pennsylvania enacted the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act (PUTSA), codified at 12 Pa. C.S. §§ 5301 to 5308, in 2004, replacing decades of common-law trade secret protection with a unified statutory framework. Civil claims for misappropriation must be brought within three years from the date the misappropriation was discovered, or reasonably should have been discovered.
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 full overview of trade secret protection across all jurisdictions, see Trade Secret Laws by State.
Does Pennsylvania Have a Trade Secret Law?
Pennsylvania enacted the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 2004, codified at 12 Pa. C.S. §§ 5301 to 5308, effective April 19, 2004. PUTSA is modeled on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) developed by the Uniform Law Commission. Before PUTSA, Pennsylvania relied on common-law trade secret principles drawn from the Restatement of Torts, which meant that protection depended on the evolving body of Pennsylvania case law rather than a codified statute. PUTSA replaced those common-law claims with a unified statutory framework, providing defined elements, predictable remedies, and express preemption of conflicting tort claims. PUTSA applies only to misappropriation occurring on or after its effective date; earlier misappropriation continues to be governed by pre-2004 common law. Pennsylvania courts look to UTSA commentary and to decisions from other UTSA-adopting states as persuasive authority.

What Counts as a Trade Secret and Misappropriation Under PUTSA?
Under 12 Pa. C.S. § 5302, a trade secret is information, including a formula, drawing, pattern, compilation including a customer list, program, device, method, technique, or process, that satisfies two requirements. 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.
Pennsylvania courts evaluate reasonableness by looking at the totality of the owner's protective measures. Recognized steps include requiring employees, contractors, and partners to sign nondisclosure agreements; restricting access to sensitive systems and files on a need-to-know basis; marking materials as proprietary or confidential; conducting security training; and implementing technical safeguards such as access controls and encryption. A business need not adopt every possible measure, but must demonstrate a genuine and consistent effort to maintain secrecy.
Misappropriation under § 5302 includes acquiring another’s trade secret knowing or having reason to know that it was acquired by improper means, including theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage. Misappropriation also includes unauthorized disclosure or use by a person who used improper means to acquire the secret; § 5302 separately covers specified knowledge, secrecy-duty and accident-or-mistake circumstances. Section 5302 does not expressly address reverse engineering or independent development. Its improper-means list is expressly nonexclusive. Independent work that does not acquire, disclose or use another’s secret does not satisfy the misappropriation definition.
Remedies and the Limitations Period Under PUTSA
A civil misappropriation claim under PUTSA must be brought within three years from the date the claimant discovered, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the misappropriation. The three-year period aligns with the UTSA baseline and the federal DTSA's limitations period under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(d). Pennsylvania applies a discovery rule, so the clock begins when the owner knew or had reason to know that misappropriation occurred, not necessarily when the underlying act took place. Claims based on misappropriation that occurred before April 19, 2004 remain subject to Pennsylvania's pre-PUTSA common-law rules.

Available remedies under PUTSA include:
- Injunctive relief (12 Pa. C.S. § 5303): A court may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation and may extend an injunction to eliminate any commercial advantage derived from the misappropriation. Where an injunction would be inequitable, the court may permit continued use subject to payment of a reasonable royalty.
- Damages (§ 5304): A prevailing claimant may recover actual loss caused by the misappropriation plus unjust enrichment not captured in the actual-loss figure. Where neither measure is provable with sufficient certainty, the court may award a reasonable royalty for the unauthorized disclosure or use.
- Exemplary damages (§ 5304): When the misappropriation is willful and malicious, the court may award exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory damages.
- Attorney fees (§ 5305): The court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses and costs to the prevailing party when a misappropriation claim is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists.
Under PUTSA, the statute displaces conflicting civil claims for misappropriation of a trade secret, channeling those disputes to the statutory framework. Contract claims, criminal liability, and civil remedies not based on misappropriation are unaffected.
How the Federal DTSA Applies in Pennsylvania
The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, enacted in May 2016, creates a federal civil cause of 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. The DTSA does not preempt PUTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so Pennsylvania trade-secret owners may plead both statutes simultaneously, commonly in federal district court.
Key DTSA provisions applicable in Pennsylvania:
- Limitations: three years from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), identical to the state period under PUTSA.
- Remedies: injunctive relief, actual damages plus unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty, exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award for willful and malicious misappropriation, and attorney fees for bad-faith claims or willful and malicious conduct (§ 1836(b)(3)).
- Ex parte seizure: in extraordinary circumstances a federal court may authorize seizure of property to prevent propagation or dissemination of a trade secret (§ 1836(b)(2)).
- Whistleblower immunity and notice: individuals who confidentially disclose a trade secret to a government official or attorney to report a suspected legal violation are immune from DTSA and state trade-secret liability (§ 1833(b)(1)). Confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must include written notice of this immunity; omitting it forfeits the right to exemplary DTSA damages and attorney fees in any action tied to that agreement (§ 1833(b)(3)).
Pennsylvania also criminalizes specified theft, unauthorized access and misuse of articles representing trade secrets under 18 Pa. C.S. § 3930, which provides second- or third-degree felony offenses depending on the conduct and required intent. Federal prosecution may also be available under the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832.
This article presents general legal information about Pennsylvania trade secret law as of 2026-06-25 and is not legal advice. Trade secret matters involve detailed factual and legal analysis that varies by situation; consult a licensed Pennsylvania attorney for guidance specific to your circumstances.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Oklahoma Trade Secret Laws
- Oregon Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret under Pennsylvania law?
Under 12 Pa. C.S. § 5302, information qualifies as a trade secret if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means, and if the owner takes efforts reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Protected information may include formulas, drawings, patterns, compilations, programs, devices, methods, techniques, and processes.
How long do I have to file a trade secret lawsuit in Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania's Uniform Trade Secrets Act provides a three-year limitations period running from the date you discovered or reasonably should have discovered the misappropriation. The same three-year period applies under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)). Note that PUTSA applies only to misappropriation occurring on or after April 19, 2004; older claims are governed by Pennsylvania common law.
What remedies are available for trade secret misappropriation in Pennsylvania?
PUTSA provides injunctions, actual loss plus nonduplicative unjust enrichment or an alternative reasonable royalty, and additional exemplary damages up to twice the § 5304(a) award for willful and malicious misappropriation. Under 12 Pa. C.S. § 5305, a court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses and costs to the prevailing party for a bad-faith misappropriation claim, a motion to terminate an injunction made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation.
Do nondisclosure agreements help protect trade secrets in Pennsylvania?
Yes. Pennsylvania courts consider whether the owner took reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy, and a well-drafted NDA is strong evidence of those efforts. Under the federal DTSA, any NDA or confidentiality agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must include a whistleblower-immunity notice, or the employer forfeits the right to seek exemplary DTSA damages and attorney fees in a federal action tied to that agreement.
Can Pennsylvania businesses bring both a PUTSA claim and a federal DTSA claim?
Yes. The DTSA does not preempt PUTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so Pennsylvania trade-secret owners may assert both claims in the same lawsuit, typically in federal district court when the misappropriation involves interstate or foreign commerce. Both carry a three-year limitations period from discovery, and the remedial frameworks are substantially parallel.
Updates
Corrected Pennsylvania definitions, fee summaries and state criminal coverage.
Corrected PUTSA's effective date from the incorrect December 17, 2004 to its actual effective date of April 19, 2004 (60 days after its February 19, 2004 enactment), and updated the statute citation to the Assembly's current domain.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the PUTSA preemption/displacement citation: 12 Pa. C.S. §5307 is verbatim the three-year statute of limitations, not the displacement provision, so that claim is now cited to PUTSA generally instead of the wrong section.
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.
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 12 (Commerce and Trade)
§ 5303Injunctive reliefIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Injunctions.--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) Exceptional circumstances.--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) Affirmative acts compelled by court order.--In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-09 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Allied Environmental Service, Inc. v. Roth, K. (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2019, 222 A.3d 422)“…in claims for injunctive relief advanced under PUTSA. See 12 Pa.C.S. § 5303(a) (providing that “[a]ctual or threat…”
- Central PA Radiation Oncology, P.C., a PA corp. v. The Good Samaritan Hospital of Lebanon, PA (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2021)“…on threatened or actual misappropriation of a trade secret. 12 Pa.C.S. §5303. In order to state a claim under the Ac…”
- MJ Test Prep v. Lynch, D. (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2021)“…ctual or threatened misappropriation” of a trade secret. 12 Pa.C.S. § 5303(a). The Act defines a trade secre…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 5302DefinitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: "Improper means." Includes, but is not limited to, theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy or espionage through electronic or other means. "Misappropriation." Includes: (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; (ii) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was: (A) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (B) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 92 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare v. Eiseman (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2015, 633 Pa. 366)“…r the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. 12 Pa.C.S. §5302; see 65 P.S. §67.102 (reflecting a mate…”
- Commonwealth v. Eiseman (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 85 A.3d 1117)“…f trade secrets, which includes disclosure without consent. 12 Pa.C.S. § 5302. This Court recognized the Trade Secret…”
- Parsons v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2006, 910 A.2d 177)“…t in 2004, Wiley quoted the definition of "trade secret" in 12 Pa. C.S. § 5302, which states: Information, including…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 5305Attorney feesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses and costs to the prevailing party: (1) if 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 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Garzone (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2012, 613 Pa. 481)“…revealed at least thirty-five such instances. See, e.g., 12 Pa.C.S. § 5305 (prevailing party in trade secrets misa…”
- Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v. 721 Logistics, LLC (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2014, 40 F. Supp. 3d 437)“…against OHL, seeking attorneys’ fees pursuant to the PUTSA, 12 Pa.C.S. § 5305, on the basis that OHL’s misappropriati…”
- Mifflinburg Telegraph, Inc. v. Criswell (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 2017, 277 F. Supp. 3d 750)“…57 , 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). . 12 Pa. C.S. § 5305. . ECF No. 106 at 12. . 18A…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 5301Short title of chapterIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 83 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- PA Dept. of Ed. v. R. Bagwell PSU v. R. Bagwell (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2016, 131 A.3d 638)“…ets under the RTKL and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Act), 12 Pa. C.S. §§5301-5308. In our analysis, we noted the Act…”
- Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare v. Eiseman (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2015, 633 Pa. 366)“…5 Act of Feb. 19, 2004, P.L. 143, No. 14 (as amended, 12 Pa.C.S. §§5301-5308).…”
- Commonwealth v. Eiseman (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 85 A.3d 1117)“…re exempt under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 12 Pa.C.S. §§ 5301-5308, (Trade Secrets Act), agency regul…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
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
- Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 12 Pa. C.S. §§ 5301 to 5308(palegis.us)
- 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)
- 12 Pa. C.S. § 5302, definitions(www.palegis.us).gov
- 18 Pa. C.S. § 3930, Theft of trade secrets(www.legis.state.pa.us).gov
- 12 Pa. C.S. § 5305, attorney fees(www.palegis.us).gov