Texas
Texas 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
Texas enacted the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) in 2013, codified at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 134A.001 to 134A.008. The statute replaced prior common-law and Theft Liability Act remedies, sets a three-year limitations period from discovery (§ 16.010), and expressly authorizes a reasonable royalty as an alternative damages measure (§ 134A.004(a)).
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 specific to your situation, consult an attorney licensed in Texas and review the full Texas trade secret statute at Trade Secret Laws by State.
Does Texas have a trade secret law?
Texas enacted TUTSA in 2013, bringing the state in line with the UTSA framework used by most other states. The statute is codified at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 134A.001 to 134A.008 and is available on the Texas Legislature's official website at statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Before TUTSA, Texas relied on common law and, in some circumstances, the Texas Theft Liability Act to address trade secret misappropriation. TUTSA displaced those remedies with a unified statutory scheme and preempts conflicting tort, restitution, and other state-law claims (§ 134A.007). The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839) does not preempt TUTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so both laws apply simultaneously to qualifying claims.
What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Texas?
Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.002(6), a trade secret is information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, financial data, or list of actual or potential customers or suppliers, that:
- 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; and
- is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Texas's definition tracks the standard UTSA language and expressly lists financial data and customer or supplier lists as examples of protectable information. The two-part test applies: the information must have economic value from secrecy AND the owner must take reasonable steps to maintain that secrecy. Misappropriation under § 134A.002(3) includes acquisition of another’s trade secret knowing or having reason to know it was acquired by improper means, or unauthorized disclosure or use by a person who used improper means to acquire the secret. Section 134A.002(3)(B) separately covers specified knowledge and secrecy-duty circumstances at disclosure or use, and accident-or-mistake cases involving knowledge or reason to know before a material change of position that the information was a trade secret and had been acquired by accident or mistake.
Section 134A.002(4) identifies independent development and reverse engineering unless prohibited as proper means. Under § 134A.002(5), reverse engineering requires a product or device acquired lawfully or from someone with the legal right to convey it. A contractual prohibition can therefore matter; the statute does not provide an unconditional reverse-engineering safe harbor.
Remedies and the limitations period in Texas
TUTSA authorizes injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation (§ 134A.003(a)). A court may condition continued use of a trade secret on payment of a reasonable royalty in exceptional circumstances, such as when an injunction would be inequitable (§ 134A.003(b)).
On damages, § 134A.004(a) provides the following damages measures:
- Actual loss caused by the misappropriation and unjust enrichment not captured by actual loss.
- In lieu of damages measured by other methods, a reasonable royalty for unauthorized disclosure or use of the trade secret (§ 134A.004(a)).
TUTSA provides injunctions, actual loss plus nonduplicative unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty in lieu of other damages measures (§ 134A.004(a)). Clear and convincing proof of willful and malicious misappropriation permits additional exemplary damages up to twice that award, allowing total damages up to three times that award (§ 134A.004(b)). 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 (§ 134A.005).
The civil limitations period is three years from the date the claimant discovers, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the misappropriation (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.010). Texas does not deviate from the standard UTSA three-year period, but note the limitations rule sits in Chapter 16, not in TUTSA itself.
How the federal DTSA applies in Texas
The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, creates a federal civil cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets related to interstate or foreign commerce. Because it does not preempt state law (§ 1838), Texas businesses can plead both a TUTSA claim and a DTSA claim simultaneously, whether in state or federal court. The DTSA's three-year limitations period from discovery (§ 1836(d)) matches the TUTSA period, but the DTSA adds ex parte seizure orders (§ 1836(b)(2)) that TUTSA does not provide.
Employers must include a whistleblower-immunity notice in any confidentiality agreement, employment agreement, or similar contract signed or updated after May 11, 2016 (18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)). The notice must state that an employee will not be held criminally or civilly liable for disclosing a trade secret to the government or an attorney in reporting a suspected legal violation. Omitting the notice does not void the underlying agreement but forfeits the employer's right to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees under the DTSA in any later action. Criminal trade secret theft may also be pursued under the federal Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832.
This article presents general legal information as of 2026-06-25 and is not legal advice. Trade secret law is fact-intensive and outcomes depend on the specific circumstances of each case. Consult an attorney licensed in Texas before taking action to protect trade secrets or respond to a misappropriation claim.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Tennessee Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
- Utah Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret under Texas law?
Under TUTSA § 134A.002(6), qualifying information includes formulas, patterns, compilations, programs, devices, methods, techniques, processes, financial data, and lists of actual or potential customers or suppliers. The information must derive independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and must be subject to reasonable secrecy efforts by the owner. Texas expressly includes financial data and customer and supplier lists, making the enumerated categories somewhat broader than some other state statutes.
How long does a business have to sue for trade secret misappropriation in Texas?
TUTSA sets a three-year limitations period, measured from the date the claimant discovers the misappropriation or, with reasonable diligence, should have discovered it (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.010). A plaintiff who delays filing after the point of constructive discovery risks having the claim time-barred even if three calendar years have not yet run from the date of actual discovery. Prompt investigation after learning of potential misappropriation is important to preserve the claim.
What remedies does Texas provide in a trade secret case?
TUTSA provides injunctions, actual loss plus nonduplicative unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty in lieu of other damages measures (§ 134A.004(a)). Clear and convincing proof of willful and malicious misappropriation permits additional exemplary damages up to twice that award, allowing total damages up to three times that award (§ 134A.004(b)). 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 (§ 134A.005).
How do NDAs and reasonable measures protect trade secrets in Texas?
TUTSA requires that a trade secret owner maintain efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to protect secrecy (§ 134A.002(6)). Non-disclosure agreements are a primary protective measure, but courts also look at physical security, access restrictions, employee training, and confidentiality markings on documents. Consistent enforcement of an NDA program signals reasonable efforts; a business that allows widespread internal access without restriction may struggle to establish that the information qualifies as a trade secret.
How does the federal DTSA interact with Texas's TUTSA?
The DTSA provides a federal civil claim when the trade secret relates to interstate or foreign commerce and does not preempt TUTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1838). Plaintiffs often plead both claims to access federal court jurisdiction and DTSA-specific remedies, including ex parte seizure orders. Post-May 11, 2016 confidentiality agreements must include a whistleblower-immunity notice (18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)); omitting it forfeits DTSA exemplary damages and attorney fees.
Updates
Corrected Texas statutory references, reverse-engineering conditions and remedies.
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.
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
§ 134a.004DAMAGESIn force
(a) In addition to or in lieu of injunctive relief, a claimant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret. (b) If willful and malicious misappropriation is proven by clear and convincing evidence, the fact finder may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under Subsection (a).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-09 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.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
§ 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), Alaska Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, California 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: Colorado Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Connecticut Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Delaware Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1832Theft of trade secretsIn forcecited in 28 of our articles
Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly— steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information; without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information; receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 260 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Nosal (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2012, 676 F.3d 854)“…Congress did just that in the federal trade secrets statute—18 U.S.C. § 1832—where it used the common law terms for…”
- United States v. Kai-Lo Hsu, A/K/A James Hsu. United States of America v. Chester S. Ho. United States of America (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1998, 155 F.3d 189)“…and a conspiracy to steal trade secrets, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1832 (a)(4) and (a)(5). B. The…”
- United States v. Martin (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2000, 228 F.3d 1)“…16- Espionage Act of 1996, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a)(5).6 In order to find a defendant g…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Florida Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Idaho Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 134A.001 to 134A.008(statutes.capitol.texas.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)
- Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 134A(tcss.legis.texas.gov).gov