Rhode Island
Rhode Island 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

Rhode Island enacted the Rhode Island Uniform Trade Secrets Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6-41-1 to 6-41-11, in 1986, providing statutory civil protection for proprietary business information throughout the state. Claims for misappropriation must be brought within three years of discovering the wrong (§ 6-41-6), and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act furnishes 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 Rhode Island have a trade secret law?
Rhode Island enacted the Rhode Island Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1986, codified at R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6-41-1 to 6-41-11. The statute follows the framework developed by the Uniform Law Commission and governs civil claims by any person or business whose trade secrets are misappropriated in Rhode Island. It defines both trade secret and misappropriation, prescribes available remedies, and establishes the three-year limitations period. Under § 6-41-7, the statute displaces conflicting state tort and restitution claims that would otherwise apply to trade-secret disputes, making it the primary state-law vehicle for such cases in Rhode Island courts. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act applies alongside the state statute without preempting it (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so a claimant may assert both sets of claims in a single lawsuit and take advantage of whichever forum best suits the facts.

What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Rhode Island?
R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-41-1(4) defines a trade secret as information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that satisfies two conditions. First, the information must derive independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by proper means by persons who can obtain economic value 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, software source code, pricing strategies, and proprietary formulas.
Misappropriation under § 6-41-1(2) includes acquiring a trade secret with knowledge or reason to know it was acquired by improper means such as theft, bribery, misrepresentation, espionage, or breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or using or disclosing a secret without consent when the person knew or had reason to know it was acquired improperly or through a breach of confidence. Section 6-41-1(1) does not expressly name reverse engineering or independent development. Independently discovering information without improper acquisition, use, or breach of confidentiality does not itself establish misappropriation.
Remedies and the limitations period in Rhode Island
The Rhode Island Uniform Trade Secrets Act provides multiple categories of relief for successful claimants:

- Injunctions: Under § 6-41-2, a court may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation for as long as the trade secret retains its protected status. In exceptional circumstances, a court may allow continued use conditioned on payment of a reasonable royalty rather than entry of a prohibitory order.
- Damages: Section 6-41-3 authorizes recovery of actual loss from misappropriation plus the defendant's unjust enrichment not already captured in that figure, or, as an alternative measure, a reasonable royalty for the period of unauthorized use or disclosure.
- Exemplary damages: When misappropriation is willful and malicious, a court may award exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award (§ 6-41-3(b)).
- Attorney fees: The court may award reasonable attorney fees 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 (§ 6-41-4).
The limitations period is three years. Under § 6-41-6, an action must be brought within three years after 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 period can compress quickly when misappropriation is ongoing, businesses should investigate and document suspected theft of trade secrets as soon as it comes to their attention.
How the federal DTSA applies in Rhode Island
The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, creates a federal civil action for misappropriation when the trade 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), Rhode Island businesses may plead both DTSA and state-law claims in a single lawsuit, selecting the forum and procedural tools that best fit the situation.
The DTSA includes one remedy absent from Rhode Island's statute: a civil ex parte seizure order under § 1836(b)(2), which permits a court to order immediate seizure of property containing a trade secret before the defendant receives notice, in extraordinary circumstances where ordinary injunctive relief would be inadequate. The DTSA's three-year limitations period from discovery (§ 1836(d)) matches Rhode Island's under § 6-41-6.
Rhode Island employers and businesses should review all nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements. Any such agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must include the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice required by 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3). An employer that omits this notice forfeits the right to recover exemplary damages and attorney fees from that individual under the DTSA, even when the misappropriation is willful and malicious.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island before taking action.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Connecticut 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 Rhode Island?
Under R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-41-1(4), information qualifies as a trade secret if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by persons who could benefit from it, and the owner takes reasonable steps to maintain secrecy. Customer lists, manufacturing processes, source code, pricing strategies, and proprietary formulas are common examples. Section 6-41-1 does not expressly name reverse engineering or independent development; independent discovery without improper acquisition, use, or breach of confidentiality does not itself establish misappropriation.
How long do I have to sue for trade secret misappropriation in Rhode Island?
Three years from when the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, under R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-41-6. Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim accruing from the first act that was or should have been discovered. Prompt investigation and documentation when misappropriation is suspected helps preserve claims within this window.
What remedies are available under Rhode Island trade secret law?
Rhode Island's statute authorizes injunctions to stop actual or threatened misappropriation (§ 6-41-2), actual damages plus unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty (§ 6-41-3), exemplary damages up to twice the award for willful and malicious misappropriation (§ 6-41-3(b)), and reasonable attorney fees 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 (§ 6-41-4). The federal DTSA adds the possibility of a civil ex parte seizure order in extraordinary circumstances.
Do Rhode Island 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 forfeits the right to recover exemplary damages and attorney fees from that individual under the DTSA, even when the misappropriation is willful and malicious.
Can I bring both DTSA and Rhode Island trade secret claims in the same lawsuit?
Yes. The DTSA does not preempt Rhode Island'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 and federal court jurisdiction while also relying on Rhode Island's statutory preemption of competing state tort claims (§ 6-41-7). Both sets of claims share a three-year limitations period from discovery.
Updates
Corrected Rhode Island’s reverse-engineering statutory attribution and attorney-fee grounds.
Corrected Rhode Island's exemplary-damages citation from § 6-41-4, which is actually the attorney's-fees section, to § 6-41-3(b), where the 2x exemplary-damages provision actually lives.
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.
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 6: Commercial Law
§ 6-41-2Injunctive 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 the 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 court order.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-09 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.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
- Rhode Island Uniform Trade Secrets Act, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6-41-1 to 6-41-11(webserver.rilegislature.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)
- 6-41-1: Definitions(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- 6-41-4: Attorney fees(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov