Washington
Washington 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
Washington enacted the Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1981, codified at Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.108.010 to 19.108.930, placing it among the early adopters of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act framework; the law took effect January 1, 1982. Civil claims for misappropriation must be filed within three years of discovery.
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 Washington. See also our full Trade Secret Laws by State series.
Does Washington have a trade secret law?
Washington enacted the Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act (WUTSA) in 1981; it took effect January 1, 1982, placing Washington among the early adopters of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act framework. The WUTSA is codified at Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.108.010 to 19.108.930. It provides civil remedies for the misappropriation of trade secrets and preempts conflicting common-law claims based on the same facts (RCW 19.108.900). Because Washington's statute predates most other state adoptions of the UTSA by several years, Washington has a comparatively developed body of case law interpreting the definitions and remedies provisions of its trade-secret framework. Washington businesses and individuals may bring misappropriation claims in state court under the WUTSA 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 Washington?
Under RCW 19.108.010(4), a trade secret is information, 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, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can 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 are required. Washington courts evaluate the reasonableness of secrecy measures by looking at factors such as the scope of internal access to the information, the existence of confidentiality agreements with employees and contractors, the use of physical or digital access controls, and consistent practices for marking sensitive materials. A trade-secret owner who shares information broadly or fails to take protective measures may lose trade-secret status for that information.
Misappropriation under RCW 19.108.010(2) means acquisition by improper means or disclosure or use without consent by a person who knew or had reason to know the trade secret was acquired through improper means or in breach of a duty of confidentiality. Reverse engineering and independent development are lawful under Washington law and do not constitute misappropriation.
Remedies and the limitations period in Washington
For a proven misappropriation claim under the WUTSA, courts may award:
- Injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation; if a court determines that prohibiting future use would be unreasonable, an injunction may condition future use on a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period the use could have been prohibited (RCW 19.108.020).
- Damages for actual loss caused by the misappropriation plus unjust enrichment not captured in the actual-loss calculation (RCW 19.108.030).
- Exemplary damages up to twice the damages award if misappropriation was willful and malicious (RCW 19.108.030(2)).
- Attorney fees may be awarded 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 (RCW 19.108.040).
The limitations period is three years from the date the misappropriation was discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered (RCW 19.108.060). This matches the standard UTSA period. Washington courts apply the discovery rule, meaning that a party with sufficient facts to suspect misappropriation should investigate without delay to preserve its claim within the statutory window.
How the federal DTSA applies in Washington
The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, creates a civil claim in federal court 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 Washington's WUTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1838), and Washington plaintiffs routinely plead both statutes to maximize available remedies and preserve forum flexibility.
Federal DTSA remedies include injunctions (subject to statutory limits protecting the right to engage in lawful employment), damages or a reasonable royalty, exemplary damages up to twice the award for willful and malicious misappropriation, and attorney fees. An ex parte seizure remedy is available in extraordinary circumstances to prevent a defendant from destroying or disseminating a 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)), the same as Washington's state period.
Any confidentiality agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must contain a whistleblower-immunity notice as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3). Omitting the 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 requires fact-specific analysis unique to each situation. Consult a lawyer licensed in Washington before taking any legal action.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Vermont Trade Secret Laws
- Virginia Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret under Washington law?
Under RCW 19.108.010(4), 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 software, customer lists, manufacturing processes, and business strategies.
How long do I have to file a trade secret claim in Washington?
Three years from the date the misappropriation was discovered or, with reasonable diligence, should have been discovered, under RCW 19.108.060. Washington courts apply the discovery rule, so a party with reason to suspect misappropriation should investigate promptly to avoid losing the claim.
What remedies are available under the Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act?
Courts may award injunctive relief, actual damages plus unjust enrichment, exemplary damages up to twice the award for willful and malicious misappropriation, 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 (RCW 19.108.020 to 19.108.040).
What steps help protect a trade secret in Washington?
Washington courts consider the totality of secrecy measures taken. Practical steps include using written nondisclosure agreements with employees, contractors, and business partners; restricting access to sensitive information on a need-to-know basis; implementing digital access controls; and consistently marking confidential materials. Maintaining these measures over time strengthens a trade-secret claim.
How does Washington's trade-secret law compare to the federal DTSA?
Both carry a three-year limitations period from discovery and offer similar remedy structures, including exemplary damages and attorney fees. The DTSA adds an ex parte seizure remedy and whistleblower-immunity notice requirements not found in the WUTSA. Washington plaintiffs typically plead both: the DTSA for the federal forum and its unique remedies, and the WUTSA to draw on Washington's established case law from more than four decades under the WUTSA.
Updates
Corrected adoption history, the statutory citation range, and state remedy descriptions.
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.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 19.108.020Remedies for misappropriation—Injunction, royalty.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) If the court determines that it would be unreasonable to prohibit future use, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited. (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 app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 18 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington (Washington Supreme Court 1994, 125 Wash. 2d 243)“…to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order”, RCW 19.108.020(3), and provides broad means for courts…”
- Boeing Company v. Sierracin Corporation (Washington Supreme Court 2000, 108 Wash. 2d 38)“…f punitive damages is affirmed. 2. Injunction RCW 19.108.020(1) provides in part that "[a]ctual or t…”
- Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle (Washington Supreme Court 2018, 190 Wash. 2d 769)“…ned misappropriation, it remains inapplicable in this case. RCW 19.108.020. Further, Sierracin did not involve app…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 19.108.010Definitions.In force
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions set forth in this section apply throughout 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 (A) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it, (B) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use, or (C) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 103 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Boeing Company v. Sierracin Corporation (Washington Supreme Court 2000, 108 Wash. 2d 38)“…ceive actual damages for misappropriation of trade secrets. RCW 19.108.010(2)(a) defines "misappropriation” as 11…”
- Ed Nowogroski Insurance v. Rucker (Washington Supreme Court 1999, 137 Wash. 2d 427)“…e UTSA. The UTSA defines trade secrets as ‘‘information[.]” RCW 19.108.010(4). Its examples of “method[s]” and “te…”
- ED NOWOGROSKI INS., INC. v. Rucker (Washington Supreme Court 1999, 971 P.2d 936)“…he UTSA. The UTSA defines trade secrets as "information[.]" RCW 19.108.010(4). Its examples of "method[s]" and "te…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 19.108.030Remedies for misappropriation—Damages.In force
(1) In addition to or in lieu of injunctive relief, a complainant may recover damages for the actual loss caused by misappropriation. A complainant also may recover for the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing damages for actual loss. (2) If wilful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection (1).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 21 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Thola v. Henschell (Court of Appeals of Washington 2007, 140 Wash. App. 70)“…t taken into account in computing damages for actual loss.” RCW 19.108.030(1). 6 Jury Instructions ¶26 Partie…”
- Eagle Group, Inc. v. Pullen (Court of Appeals of Washington 2002, 114 Wash. App. 409)“…may include lost business opportunities. We agree. Under RCW 19.108.030(1) of the UTSA, “a complainant may reco…”
- Boeing Company v. Sierracin Corporation (Washington Supreme Court 2000, 108 Wash. 2d 38)“…e secrets to be willful and malicious within the meaning of RCW 19.108.030(2), and awarded exemplary damages which…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 19.108.060Actions for misappropriation—Time limitation.In force
An action for misappropriation must be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. For the purposes of this section, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McLeod v. Northwest Alloys, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Washington 1998, 90 Wash. App. 30)“…or actions alleging the misappropriation of a trade secret. RCW 19.108.060. On January 25, 1990, Marvin and Gertru…”
- Architechtonics Construction Management, Inc. v. Khorram (Court of Appeals of Washington 2002, 111 Wash. App. 725)“…ed the common law rule announced in Ruth v. Dight. RCW 19.108.060. RCW 62A.2-725(2). 42 W…”
- Dean S. v. Frederick S. (Court of Appeals of Washington 2006, 134 Wash. App. 141)“…lpractice, RCW 4.16.350; misappropriation of trade secrets, RCW 19.108.060; and Uniform Commercial Code claims for…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 19.108.040Award of attorney's fees.In force
If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or wilful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 20 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ada Motors, Inc., Dba Burien Toyota, Res. v. David L. Butler, App. (Court of Appeals of Washington 2018, 432 P.3d 445)“…h, wicked, evil or mischievous intentions or 18 RCW 19.108.040. 195 RCW 19.108.010. 2…”
- Boeing Company v. Sierracin Corporation (Washington Supreme Court 2000, 108 Wash. 2d 38)“…costs to Sierracin under RCW 19.86.090 and to Boeing under RCW 19.108.040. The trial court then entered a permane…”
- Thola v. Henschell (Court of Appeals of Washington 2007, 140 Wash. App. 70)“…rty is entitled to attorney fees for its successful claims. RCW 19.108.040; Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 1…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 19.108.900Effect of chapter on other law.In force
(1) This chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state pertaining to civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret. (2) This chapter does not affect: (a) Contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or (b) Criminal liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ed Nowogroski Insurance v. Rucker (Washington Supreme Court 1999, 137 Wash. 2d 427)“…ade Secrets Act abrogates only prior conflicting state law. RCW 19.108.900; 5 Boeing, 108 Wn.2d at 48 . Th…”
- Thola v. Henschell (Court of Appeals of Washington 2007, 140 Wash. App. 70)“…to civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.” RCW 19.108.900(1). But it does not affect “[c]ontractu…”
- Seiu Healthcare Nw Training Partnership v. Evergreen Freedom Foundation (Court of Appeals of Washington 2018, 427 P.3d 688)“…o civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret." RCW 19.108.900. The Foundation contends this language…”
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
- Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.108.010 to 19.108.940(app.leg.wa.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)
- Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act(app.leg.wa.gov).gov