Utah
Utah 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. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Utah enacted the Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UUTSA) in 1989, making it one of the earlier states to adopt the UTSA framework. The statute is codified at Utah Code §§ 13-24-1 to 13-24-9 and sets a three-year civil limitations period measured from discovery or when discovery should have occurred with reasonable diligence (§ 13-24-7).
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 Utah and review the full Utah trade secret statute at Trade Secret Laws by State.
Does Utah have a trade secret law?
Utah enacted the Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1989, placing it among the earlier states to codify the UTSA framework developed by the Uniform Law Commission. The statute is codified at Utah Code §§ 13-24-1 to 13-24-9 and is available on the Utah Legislature's official website at le.utah.gov. UUTSA provides a civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation and preempts conflicting tort, restitution, and other state-law claims relating to misappropriation (§ 13-24-8), replacing the prior common-law patchwork. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839) does not preempt Utah's statute (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so both laws operate in parallel on qualifying claims.
What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Utah?
Under Utah Code § 13-24-2(4), a trade secret is information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, 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.
Both elements are required. The first prong asks whether the information provides a competitive edge precisely because it is not publicly available. The second prong asks whether the owner actively protects that secrecy through reasonable measures. Information that the owner freely shares internally or allows employees to take away without restriction may fail the second prong even if it has commercial value.
Misappropriation under Utah Code § 13-24-2(2) includes acquiring a trade secret while knowing or having reason to know it was acquired by improper means. It also covers disclosure or use without consent under the statutory conditions involving improper means, knowledge of confidentiality duties, or knowledge of accident or mistake before a material change of position. Utah Code § 13-24-2 does not expressly name reverse engineering or independent development. Independent discovery without improper acquisition or use or breach of a confidentiality duty does not itself establish misappropriation.
Remedies and the limitations period in Utah
Utah courts may issue injunctive relief to stop actual or threatened misappropriation (§ 13-24-3). In exceptional circumstances a court may condition continued use of a trade secret on payment of a reasonable royalty rather than issuing an outright injunction.
Damages under § 13-24-4 may include actual loss and unjust enrichment not counted in that loss; as an alternative to other measures, the court may award a reasonable royalty for unauthorized disclosure or use. A material and prejudicial change of position before knowledge or reason to know of the misappropriation can make monetary recovery inequitable. For willful and malicious misappropriation, the court may award additional exemplary damages up to twice the award under § 13-24-4(1). The court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party for a misappropriation claim made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation (§ 13-24-5).
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 (§ 13-24-7). Utah does not deviate from the standard UTSA three-year period. Because the statute measures from discovery (or constructive discovery), a business that fails to investigate suspicious conduct promptly may find that the limitations period began running before it realized a misappropriation had occurred.
How the federal DTSA applies in Utah
The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, provides a federal civil cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets related to interstate or foreign commerce. Because it does not preempt state law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), Utah businesses can plead both a UUTSA claim and a DTSA claim simultaneously. The DTSA's three-year limitations period from discovery (§ 1836(d)) mirrors Utah's period, but the DTSA adds ex parte seizure orders (§ 1836(b)(2)) that UUTSA does not provide, allowing a court to seize property to prevent propagation or dissemination of a trade secret before a hearing.
Employers must provide the immunity notice under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b) in agreements with employees, including contractors and consultants, governing trade secrets or other confidential information and entered into or updated after May 11, 2016. A cross-reference to a reporting policy supplied to the employee can satisfy the requirement. Immunity covers, among other circumstances, confidential disclosures to a government official or attorney solely to report or investigate a suspected legal violation. Omitting notice bars DTSA exemplary damages and attorney fees in an action against the employee who did not receive it. Criminal trade secret theft may also be prosecuted 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 Utah before taking action to protect trade secrets or respond to a misappropriation claim.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Texas Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
- Virginia 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 Utah law?
Under Utah Code § 13-24-2(4), qualifying information includes formulas, patterns, compilations, programs, devices, methods, techniques, and processes. The information must derive independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and must be subject to reasonable secrecy efforts. Common examples include proprietary software code, manufacturing processes, customer lists, pricing strategies, and business plans, provided the owner consistently treats them as confidential and takes active steps to prevent unauthorized access.
How long does a business have to sue for trade secret misappropriation in Utah?
Utah Code § 13-24-7 sets a three-year limitations period, measured from the date the claimant discovers the misappropriation or, with reasonable diligence, should have discovered it. If a business delays investigating suspicious conduct and a reasonable investigation would have revealed the misappropriation earlier, a court may start the limitations clock from that earlier date. Prompt action after learning of potential misappropriation is important to preserve the civil claim.
What remedies are available in a Utah trade secret case?
Remedies include injunctions, actual loss plus nonduplicative unjust enrichment or an alternative reasonable royalty, and additional exemplary damages up to twice the award under § 13-24-4(1) for willful and malicious misappropriation (§§ 13-24-3 to 13-24-4). The court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party for a misappropriation claim made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation (§ 13-24-5).
What steps should a business take to protect trade secrets in Utah?
UUTSA requires efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain secrecy as a condition of trade secret status (§ 13-24-2(4)). Practical measures include executing non-disclosure agreements with employees and contractors, restricting access to sensitive information on a need-to-know basis, marking confidential documents clearly, using secure systems and passwords, and training employees on confidentiality obligations. Courts evaluate the totality of protective measures, so a layered approach is more defensible than relying on any single safeguard.
Can I bring both a Utah UUTSA claim and a federal DTSA claim?
Yes. The DTSA does not preempt Utah's trade secret statute (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so a plaintiff may pursue both claims simultaneously. A DTSA claim requires the trade secret to relate to interstate or foreign commerce and must be filed within three years of discovery (§ 1836(d)). The DTSA also provides ex parte seizure relief that UUTSA does not, and requires a whistleblower-immunity notice in employee agreements governing confidential information entered into or updated after May 11, 2016; omission bars DTSA exemplary damages and fees against the employee who did not receive notice.
Updates
Corrected definitions, remedies, and the scope of the federal notice requirement.
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.
Utah Code, Title 13: Commerce and Trade
§ 13-24-3Injunctive relief.In force
(1) 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. (2) 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. (3) 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 le.utah.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
- Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Utah Code §§ 13-24-1 to 13-24-9(le.utah.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)
- Utah Code ? 13-24-2: official text(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Code ? 13-24-4: official text(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Code ? 13-24-5: official text(le.utah.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. ? 1833: whistleblower immunity and notice(www.govinfo.gov).gov