Vermont
Vermont 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 9, 2026. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Vermont's trade secret statute, the Vermont Trade Secrets Act (VTSA), is codified at 9 V.S.A. §§ 4601 to 4609. Effective July 1, 1996 and modeled on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), it protects confidential commercial information from misappropriation. Civil claims must be filed within six years of discovering, or reasonably discovering, the misappropriation, under the dedicated limitations statute at 12 V.S.A. § 523, longer than the three-year period used in most other states' UTSA enactments.
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 on your specific situation, consult a lawyer licensed in Vermont. See also our full Trade Secret Laws by State series.
Does Vermont have a trade secret law?
The Vermont Trade Secrets Act (VTSA), codified at 9 V.S.A. §§ 4601 to 4609, took effect July 1, 1996. Under § 4609, it does not apply to earlier misappropriation or to the later continuation of misappropriation that began before that date. The VTSA closely follows the Uniform Trade Secrets Act promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission, placing Vermont within the broad majority of states that have adopted the UTSA framework. The Act governs civil claims for misappropriation of trade secrets and preempts most competing common-law or statutory tort claims that are based on the same underlying conduct (9 V.S.A. § 4607). Vermont businesses and individuals whose confidential commercial information is stolen or misused may bring a claim under the VTSA in Vermont state court or, where the secret relates to interstate or foreign commerce, in federal court under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act.

What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Vermont?
Under 9 V.S.A. § 4601(3), a trade secret is information of any kind, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that satisfies two requirements:
- It derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by others who could obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.
- It is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Both elements must be present. A business cannot rely on secrecy alone if it has not taken reasonable protective measures such as nondisclosure agreements, access controls, or clearly marked confidentiality policies. Courts evaluate reasonableness based on the nature of the information and the industry context.
Misappropriation under 9 V.S.A. § 4601(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. 9 V.S.A. § 4601 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 Vermont
A plaintiff who proves misappropriation under the VTSA may seek the following remedies:

- Injunctive relief to stop actual or threatened misappropriation; in exceptional circumstances a court may permit continued use conditioned on a reasonable royalty (9 V.S.A. § 4602).
- Damages for actual loss caused by the misappropriation plus unjust enrichment not captured in the actual-loss calculation; in the alternative, a court may award a reasonable royalty for the period of unauthorized use (9 V.S.A. § 4603(a)).
- Exemplary damages if the misappropriation was malicious. Vermont's statute (which calls this remedy punitive damages) requires only a finding of malice, not the willful-and-malicious standard used in the model UTSA, and it sets no fixed multiplier or cap on the award (9 V.S.A. § 4603(b)).
- Attorney fees: Vermont's statute makes an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the substantially prevailing party mandatory in any action under the chapter, rather than discretionary or conditioned on bad faith or willful and malicious conduct (9 V.S.A. § 4603(a)(4)).
The limitations period is six years from the date the misappropriation was discovered or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered, under 12 V.S.A. § 523, a limitations statute in Title 12 rather than in the VTSA itself. This is longer than the three-year period most other UTSA states use. Courts apply the discovery rule broadly, so a claimant who has sufficient facts to suspect misappropriation should act promptly rather than wait for certainty.
How the federal DTSA applies in Vermont
The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, creates a federal civil claim for misappropriation of any trade secret related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. The DTSA does not preempt Vermont's VTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1838); plaintiffs routinely plead both statutes to maximize remedies and preserve forum flexibility.
Federal DTSA remedies parallel the VTSA: injunctions (subject to statutory limits on restraining lawful employment), damages including unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty, exemplary damages up to twice the award for willful and malicious misappropriation, and attorney fees. The DTSA also provides an ex parte seizure remedy for emergency situations where a defendant might destroy or disseminate the stolen secret before notice can be given (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)). The federal limitations period is three years from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), shorter than Vermont's own six-year state-law period under 12 V.S.A. § 523.
Employers must include a whistleblower-immunity notice in any confidentiality agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 (18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)). Failure to include that notice forfeits the right to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees under the DTSA for claims arising under that agreement. Federal criminal liability may also arise under the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832, for intentional theft of trade secrets.
This article presents general legal information only, not legal advice, as of 2026-06-25. Trade secret law involves fact-intensive analysis specific to each situation. Consult a lawyer licensed in Vermont before taking any legal action.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Virginia Trade Secret Laws
- Washington Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret under Vermont law?
Under 9 V.S.A. § 4601(3), information qualifies as a trade secret if it has independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and is protected by reasonable secrecy measures. Common examples include proprietary formulas, customer lists, software code, and business processes.
How long do I have to file a trade secret claim in Vermont?
Six years from the date the misappropriation was discovered, or from the date it should have been discovered with reasonable diligence, under 12 V.S.A. § 523, a dedicated limitations statute in Title 12 rather than the VTSA itself. This is longer than the three-year period used in most other UTSA states. Waiting too long after suspicion arises may still bar the claim.
What remedies are available under the Vermont Trade Secrets Act?
Courts may award injunctive relief (9 V.S.A. § 4602), actual damages plus unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty (9 V.S.A. § 4603(a)), exemplary (punitive) damages for malicious misappropriation with no fixed multiplier (9 V.S.A. § 4603(b)), and a mandatory award of costs and attorney fees to the substantially prevailing party (9 V.S.A. § 4603(a)(4)).
Do NDAs and confidentiality policies help protect trade secrets in Vermont?
Yes. Reasonable secrecy measures are a required element of the trade-secret definition under 9 V.S.A. § 4601(3). Written nondisclosure agreements, employee training, access controls, and clear marking of confidential materials all support a trade-secret claim. Without such steps, courts may find the information was not legally protectable.
Can I bring both a Vermont state claim and a federal DTSA claim?
Yes. The DTSA does not preempt Vermont's VTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1838). Plaintiffs frequently plead both statutes to access all available remedies and to choose between state and federal court. The DTSA claim carries a three-year limitations period from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), while the Vermont state claim has a longer six-year period from discovery under 12 V.S.A. § 523.
Updates
Clarified the effective date and misappropriation rules.
Corrected Vermont's trade-secret statute of limitations from an incorrectly cited three years to the actual six years under 12 V.S.A. § 523, and fixed miscited exemplary-damages, attorney's-fees, injunctive-relief, damages, and preemption provisions to their correct sections within 9 V.S.A. chapter 143.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
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.
Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 9: Commerce and Trade, Chapter 143: Trade Secrets
§ 4602Injunctive reliefIn force
(a) A court may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret. 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 use could have been prohibited. Exceptional circumstances include a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable. (c) In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order. (Added 1995, No. 90 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; amended 2013, No. 199 (Adj. Sess.), § 17.)
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-09 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
§ 4601DefinitionsIn force
As used in this chapter: (1) “Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means. (2) “Misappropriation” means: (A) 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 (B) 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; or (ii) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was: (I) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (III) 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 or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 20 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Dicks v. Jensen (Supreme Court of Vermont 2001, 172 Vt. 43)“…violated the *45 Vermont Trade Secrets Act, 9 V.S.A §§ 4601-4609, when they left plaintiffs employ…”
- In Re: Manchester Square Partners, L.P. (Vermont Superior Court 2012)“…trade secret” under Vermont law. Although the language of 9 V.S.A. § 4601(3) is drafted fairly broadly, it seems…”
- Schwartz v. Frankenhoff (Supreme Court of Vermont 1999, 169 Vt. 287)“…namely the composition of the products. See, e.g., 9 V.S.A. § 4601(3) (defining “trade secret” as “informa…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 12: Court Procedure, Chapter 23: Limitation of Time for Commencement of Actions, Subchapter: ACTIONS LIMITED
§ 523Trade secretsIn force
An action for misappropriation of trade secrets under 9 V.S.A. chapter 143 shall be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrues, and not after. The cause of action shall be deemed to accrue as of the date the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. (Added 1995, No. 90 (Adj. Sess.), § 2; amended 2013, No. 199 (Adj. Sess.), § 16.)
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2012
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mylan Technologies, Inc. v. Zydus Noveltech, Inc. (Vermont Superior Court 2012)“…all of the counts against them are time-barred pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 523. Second, they argue that the tortious-i…”
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
§ 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
- Vermont Trade Secrets Act, 9 V.S.A. §§ 4601 to 4609(legislature.vermont.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)
- 12 V.S.A. 523 - Trade secrets; six-year limitations period (discovery rule)(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- 9 V.S.A. Chapter 143: Trade Secrets(legislature.vermont.gov).gov