Wisconsin
Wisconsin Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Wisconsin's trade secret statute, Wis. Stat. § 134.90 (enacted 1985), follows the Uniform Trade Secrets Act framework and places its substantive civil provisions in numbered subsections within one section, with lettered paragraphs beneath them. The civil limitations period is three years from 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. This guide covers civil trade-secret protection in Wisconsin under Wis. Stat. § 134.90 and the federal DTSA; for other jurisdictions see the full Trade Secret Laws by State index.
Does Wisconsin have a trade secret law?
Yes. Wisconsin enacted Wis. Stat. § 134.90, commonly called the Wisconsin Uniform Trade Secrets Act, in 1985 (Wisconsin Legislature, docs.legis.wisconsin.gov). The statute adopts the Uniform Trade Secrets Act framework published by the Uniform Law Commission and establishes a civil cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. Wisconsin's codification is unusual: rather than spreading the law across separately numbered sections as most states do, the substantive civil provisions appear as numbered subsections with lettered paragraphs within a single statute, from § 134.90(1) through § 134.90(7). Practitioners must look to subsections rather than separate code sections when citing specific rules. Wisconsin's law displaces conflicting tort claims based on the same misappropriation (Wis. Stat. § 134.90(6)), but preserves contract remedies, criminal liability, and other civil claims not grounded in misappropriation. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839 (2016), also applies when a Wisconsin trade secret relates to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce. Federal law does not preempt state trade secret law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so Wisconsin and DTSA claims may proceed together in a single action.
What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Wisconsin?
Under Wis. Stat. § 134.90(1)(c), 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 must be present. Courts examine whether the owner took concrete protective steps: non-disclosure agreements, access restrictions, password controls, and written confidentiality policies all support the reasonable-measures prong. A business that circulates a proprietary formula within the organization with no restrictions will struggle to satisfy this element even if the underlying information is genuinely valuable.
Misappropriation under Wis. Stat. § 134.90(2) includes acquisition of another's trade secret by means the person knows or has reason to know are improper. It also includes disclosure or use without express or implied consent by a person who used improper means to acquire it; separate branches cover specified knowledge, confidentiality-duty and accident-or-mistake circumstances.
Wis. Stat. § 134.90(1)(a) gives a nonexclusive list of improper means, including theft, bribery, misrepresentation, espionage and breach or inducement of a confidentiality duty. It does not expressly identify reverse engineering or independent development as safe harbors. The distinction between proper and improper means supports examining how information was obtained, including whether confidentiality or use restrictions apply.
Remedies and the limitations period in Wisconsin
Limitations period: Wisconsin law gives three years, running from the date the misappropriation was discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. The period comes from Wis. Stat. § 893.51(2) in the general limitations chapter; § 134.90 itself contains no limitations subsection. This is consistent with the UTSA model. Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim, with the period running from the first act the owner discovered or should have discovered.
Injunctive relief: Courts may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation. Under Wis. Stat. § 134.90(3)(b), an injunction may condition future use on a reasonable royalty in exceptional circumstances, including a material and prejudicial change of position before knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation that makes a prohibitive injunction inequitable. The royalty period cannot exceed the period for which use could have been prohibited.
Damages: Wis. Stat. § 134.90(4)(a) permits actual-loss damages and unjust enrichment not already included in actual loss. Damages may be measured exclusively by a reasonable royalty if the claimant cannot prove, by another method, damages exceeding that royalty.
Exemplary damages: For willful and malicious misappropriation, the court may award additional punitive damages up to twice the award under Wis. Stat. § 134.90(4)(a).
Attorney fees: The court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party if a misappropriation claim is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or misappropriation is willful and deliberate (Wis. Stat. § 134.90(4)(c)).
Wisconsin also criminalizes specified unauthorized acts involving property representing a trade secret when accompanied by intent to deprive the owner of control or appropriate its use. Wis. Stat. § 943.205(1), (3) makes a violation a Class I felony; § 134.90(6)(b)3 preserves criminal remedies.
How the federal DTSA applies in Wisconsin
The DTSA (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839) took effect May 11, 2016, and provides a federal civil remedy when a Wisconsin trade secret relates to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce. Because most commercial activity in Wisconsin involves interstate commerce, DTSA claims are available in the vast majority of Wisconsin trade secret disputes.
Key DTSA features that operate alongside Wisconsin state law:
- Limitations period: Both the DTSA and Wisconsin's trade secret statute provide three-year limitations periods from discovery. The windows run concurrently, so there is no gap between the state and federal periods.
- Ex parte seizure: The DTSA authorizes courts to order the seizure of property to prevent propagation of a trade secret without advance notice to the defendant in extraordinary circumstances (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)). Wisconsin's statute does not include an equivalent provision.
- Comparable remedies: DTSA remedies, including injunctions, damages, up to 2x exemplary for willful and malicious misappropriation, and attorney fees, parallel Wisconsin's state remedies and apply under federal standards and procedures.
- Whistleblower immunity and notice: Under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b), an individual may disclose a trade secret in confidence to a government official or attorney to report a suspected legal violation without civil or criminal liability. Employers must include written notice of this immunity in any confidentiality or employment agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016. An employer who omits this notice cannot recover exemplary damages or attorney fees in a DTSA action against the person covered by that agreement.
Wisconsin employers should audit all post-2016 confidentiality agreements, NDAs, and employment contracts to confirm DTSA-compliant whistleblower language is present in each document.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes Wisconsin trade-secret law under Wis. Stat. § 134.90 and the federal DTSA as of 2026-06-25 and does not address your specific facts. Trade-secret disputes are highly fact-specific and deadlines are strict. Consult an attorney licensed in Wisconsin before acting.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- West Virginia Trade Secret Laws
- Wyoming Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Wisconsin's limitations period for a trade secret claim?
Three years from the date the misappropriation was discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. The federal DTSA provides the same three-year period from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), so both windows align and run concurrently.
What types of information qualify as trade secrets in Wisconsin?
Under Wis. Stat. § 134.90(1)(c), any formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process can qualify if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and the owner takes reasonable steps to protect it. Customer lists, pricing strategies, manufacturing processes, source code, and proprietary algorithms are common candidates, each subject to the two-part test.
Can a Wisconsin employer sue a former employee for misappropriating trade secrets?
Yes. If a former employee discloses or uses protectable Wisconsin trade secrets in breach of a confidentiality agreement or other duty of confidentiality, the employer may bring a civil claim under Wis. Stat. § 134.90. General skills, experience, and industry knowledge an employee develops during employment are not trade secrets and cannot be restricted. The distinction between protected information and general know-how is often disputed and depends on specific facts.
Is reverse engineering a trade secret legal in Wisconsin?
Wis. Stat. § 134.90(1)(a) gives a nonexclusive list of improper means, including theft, bribery, misrepresentation, espionage and breach or inducement of a confidentiality duty. It does not expressly identify reverse engineering or independent development as safe harbors. The distinction between proper and improper means supports examining how information was obtained, including whether confidentiality or use restrictions apply.
What does the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice require for Wisconsin employers?
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3), any Wisconsin employer who enters into or updates a confidentiality agreement, NDA, or employment agreement after May 11, 2016 must notify the individual that they may disclose a trade secret in confidence to a government official or attorney to report a suspected legal violation without civil or criminal liability. Omitting this notice forfeits the employer's right to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees in a DTSA action against that individual.
Updates
Clarified state trade secret rules, remedies, and applicable deadlines.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Re-pinned Wisconsin's trade secret statute citations to the bundle-confirmed structure of Wis. Stat. 134.90 (misappropriation is subsection (2), injunctive relief (3), damages/exemplary damages (4)(a)/(4)(b), tort-displacement (6)), corrected the attorney-fee standard from "willful and malicious" to the statute's actual "willful and deliberate" wording, and removed the unconfirmed section pincite from the three-year limitations-period claim (that specific subsection remains unverified) while keeping the underlying claim.
Removed an incorrect subsection pin: the reverse-engineering discussion cited Wis. Stat. 134.90(1)(b), which is the definition of readily ascertainable information, not a reverse-engineering provision.
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.
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 134: Miscellaneous Trade Regulations
§ 134.90Uniform trade secrets act.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Definitions. In this section: (a) “Improper means” includes espionage, theft, bribery, misrepresentation and breach or inducement of a breach of duty to maintain secrecy. (b) “Readily ascertainable” information does not include information accessible through a license agreement or by an employee under a confidentiality agreement with his or her employer. (c) “Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process to which all of the following apply: 1. The information 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. 2. The information is the subject of efforts to maintain its secrecy that are reasonable under the circumstances. (2) Misappropriation. No person, including the state, may misappropriate or threaten to misappropriate a trade secret by doing any of the following: (a) Acquiring the trade secret of another by means which the person knows or has reason to know constitute improper means.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-09 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 96 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Burbank Grease Services, LLC v. Sokolowski (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2006, 294 Wis. 2d 274)“…requires us to determine whether the trade secret statute, Wis. Stat. § 134.90 (2003-04), 1 precludes all civil law…”
- North Highland Inc. v. Jefferson Machine & Tool Inc. (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2017, 377 Wis. 2d 496)“…id amount constitutes 'information' as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 134.90(1)(c).).…”
- Aon Risk Services, Inc. v. Liebenstein (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2005, 289 Wis. 2d 127)“…479, 482 (Ct. App. 1999) (trade-secret protection under Wis. Stat. § 134.90 ). ¶ 7. In order to survive summ…”
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)
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 893: Limitations Of Commencement Of Actions And Proceedings; Procedure For Claims Against Governmental Units
§ 893.51Action for wrongful taking of personal property.In force
(1) Except as provided in sub. (2), an action to recover damages for the wrongful taking, conversion or detention of personal property shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred. The cause of action accrues at the time the wrongful taking or conversion occurs, or the wrongful detention begins. (2) An action under s. 134.90 shall be commenced within 3 years after the misappropriation of a trade secret is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. A continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim. Judicial Council Committee’s Note, 1979: This section is based on previous s. 893.19 (6), without change in substance, but with some expansion of language to make clear that accrual of the cause of action is not delayed until the person bringing the action learns of the wrongful taking or detention. An action for recovery of the personal property is subject to s. 893.35 which is also based on previous s. 893.19 (6). [Bill 326-A]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 25 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Tomczak v. Bailey (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1998, 218 Wis. 2d 245)“…reitag, the applicable limitations period as set forth in Wis. Stat. § 893.51 (1) (1987-88) provided that: [A]n act…”
- Estate of Makos Ex Rel. Makos v. Wisconsin Masons Health Care Fund (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1997, 211 Wis. 2d 41)“…der conceals his or her injurious act or omission). [4] Wis. Stat. § 893.51 (1) states that actions for the wrongfu…”
- Richard A. Mueller v. TL90108, LLC (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2020, 390 Wis. 2d 34)“…s. Stat. § 893.35 ("action to recover personal property"); Wis. Stat. § 893.51(1) ("action to recover damages").…”
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: Alaska Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, California Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, District of Columbia 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
§ 1831Economic espionageIn forcecited in 24 of our articles
Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly— steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret; without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret; receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3); or conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 249 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Nosal (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2016, 844 F.3d 1024)“…ade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq. When Nosal left Korn/Ferry,…”
- United States v. Aleynikov (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2012, 676 F.3d 71)“…EEA contains two operative provisions. The first section ( 18 U.S.C. § 1831 (a)), which is not charged in the indic…”
- United States v. Chung (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2011, 659 F.3d 815)“…of violating the Economic Espi- onage Act of 1996 (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a)(1), (3); on one count of conspiring…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Michigan Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Minnesota Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 943: Crimes Against Property
§ 943.205Theft of trade secrets.In force
(1) Whoever with intent to deprive or withhold from the owner thereof the control of a trade secret, or with intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or the use of another not the owner, and without authority of the owner, does any of the following may be penalized as provided in sub. (3): (a) Takes, uses, transfers, conceals, exhibits or retains possession of property of the owner representing a trade secret. (b) Makes or causes to be made a copy of property of the owner representing a trade secret. (c) Obtains title to property representing a trade secret or a copy of such property by intentionally deceiving the owner with a false representation which is known to be false, made with intent to defraud, and which does defraud the person to whom it is made. “False representation” includes a promise made with intent not to perform if it is a part of a false and fraudulent scheme. (2) In this section: (a) “Copy” means any facsimile, replica, photograph or other reproduction of any property and any notation, drawing or sketch made of or from any property.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Wisconsin Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Wis. Stat. § 134.90(docs.legis.wisconsin.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)
- Wis. Stat. § 134.90(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. § 943.205(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov