California
California Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 2 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
California's California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426 to 3426.11, enacted in 1984, is distinctive for its broad preemption rule: California courts consistently interpret CUTSA to displace virtually all competing common-law tort theories that rest on the same facts as a trade secret misappropriation claim. The 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. For guidance specific to your situation, see our full Trade Secret Laws by State resource or consult an attorney licensed in California.
Does California have a trade secret law?
Yes. California enacted CUTSA in 1984, codified at Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426 to 3426.11. CUTSA covers civil misappropriation claims and preempts conflicting civil causes of action based on the same underlying facts (Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.7). California courts have applied this preemption broadly, routinely dismissing conversion, unjust enrichment, intentional interference, and similar common-law tort claims when the alleged wrongdoing amounts to trade secret misappropriation. Federal criminal liability may also arise under the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832, and the federal DTSA provides a parallel civil cause of action that is not displaced by CUTSA.
What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in California?
Under Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d), a trade secret is information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that (1) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by others who could gain economic value from it, and (2) is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.
Misappropriation under Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(b) means acquisition by improper means, or disclosure or use without consent by someone who knew or should have known the information was obtained through improper means or under a duty of secrecy. Improper means include theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, and espionage. Reverse engineering and independent development are expressly lawful under CUTSA and do not constitute misappropriation.
Remedies and the limitations period in California
Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.2 authorizes injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation, including orders prohibiting future use. In exceptional circumstances where an injunction would be inequitable, a court may instead require payment of a reasonable royalty for the duration of unauthorized use.
Actual damages plus unjust enrichment, or a reasonable royalty where neither can be proved with certainty, are available under Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.3. Willful and malicious misappropriation allows the court to award exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory amount. Attorney fees may be awarded when a claim or motion is made in bad faith or when willful and malicious misappropriation is established (Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.4).
The three-year limitations period runs from when the plaintiff discovered the misappropriation, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered it (Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.6). California courts apply a discovery rule; the clock does not automatically start on the date the first act of misappropriation occurred.
CUTSA's super-preemption and how it affects California litigation
CUTSA's preemption provision (Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.7) is broader than preemption in most UTSA states. When a plaintiff's common-law claims, such as conversion, interference with prospective economic advantage, or fraud, share factual allegations with the trade secret claim, California courts dismiss those independent claims as preempted. Plaintiffs must structure their complaints carefully: only allegations that rest on facts wholly independent from the misappropriation will survive.
CUTSA preemption does not extend to criminal prosecution, contract claims, or civil claims based on entirely separate conduct. It also leaves untouched any remedies available under the federal DTSA. Defendants in California trade secret litigation routinely file early motions to narrow or dismiss preempted counts, so plaintiffs benefit from clearly separating any non-misappropriation theories in their initial filings.
How the federal DTSA applies in California
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, creates a federal civil remedy when the trade secret relates to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. The DTSA does not preempt CUTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1838), and plaintiffs in California federal courts regularly plead both claims together. The DTSA's three-year limitations period matches CUTSA's period (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)).
Federal remedies include injunction, actual damages, unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty, exemplary damages up to 2x for willful and malicious misappropriation, and attorney fees (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)). Any confidentiality agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016, must include a whistleblower-immunity notice under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3). Omitting it forfeits exemplary damages and attorney fees under the DTSA. California employers with large workforces and extensive use of NDAs face particular exposure to this requirement.
As of 2026-06-25, this article reflects California statutes and federal law as publicly available. Laws change; consult a lawyer licensed in California before taking or forgoing any legal action.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Nevada Trade Secret Laws
- Arizona Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does CUTSA preemption eliminate all non-trade-secret claims in California?
No. CUTSA preempts civil claims that are based on the same underlying facts as the trade secret misappropriation. Claims arising from wholly independent conduct, contract claims, and criminal charges are not preempted. California courts examine whether the complaint's allegations depend on the same conduct that constitutes the alleged misappropriation before dismissing a parallel count.
Can a former employee's customer relationships be a trade secret in California?
Customer lists and relationship data can qualify as trade secrets in California if they derive economic value from secrecy and are protected by reasonable measures, such as restricted access and confidentiality agreements. California Business and Professions Code § 16600 also broadly restricts non-compete clauses, so trade secret law is often the primary tool for protecting customer relationships after a departure.
When does the three-year CUTSA clock begin in California?
The period starts when the plaintiff discovered the misappropriation or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered it (Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.6). California applies a discovery rule, so the clock is tied to knowledge or constructive notice, not necessarily to the date the first misappropriation occurred.
What happens if a California employer omits the DTSA whistleblower notice?
Omitting the required notice from a confidentiality agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016, means the employer cannot seek exemplary damages or attorney fees under the DTSA in any subsequent misappropriation action. The underlying trade secret claim remains available, and CUTSA remedies are unaffected; only those two enhanced federal remedies are forfeited.
Is reverse engineering lawful in California?
Yes. CUTSA expressly permits reverse engineering and independent development as lawful means of acquiring information. A party that independently recreates a formula, process, or device through legitimate analysis does not commit misappropriation under California law, even if the resulting information is identical to the trade secret.
Updates
Corrected the code name for California’s noncompete provision in the customer-relationships FAQ.
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.
California Civil Code
§ 3426.2In force
(a) 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 period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation. (b) 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. (c) In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
§ 3426.1In force
As used in this title, unless the context requires otherwise: (a) “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. Reverse engineering or independent derivation alone shall not be considered improper means. (b) “Misappropriation” means: (1) 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 (2) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who: (A) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) 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 (C) Before a material change of his or her position, knew or had reason to know…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 307 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Whyte v. Schlage Lock Company (California Court of Appeal 2002, 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 277)“…asonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” (Civ. Code, § 3426.1, subd. (d).) Schlage sought to e…”
- DVD Copy Control Ass'n, Inc. v. Bunner (California Supreme Court 2003, 4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 69)“…ator nor to be in privity with any such misappropriators. Civil Code section 3426.1, subdivision (d) defines "trade secret"…”
- Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp. (California Court of Appeal 2003, 3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 279)“…ns, and (3) the defendant’s actions damaged the plaintiff. (Civ. Code, § 3426.1; 1 see Frantz v. Jo…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 3426.3In force
(a) 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. (b) If neither damages nor unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation are provable, the court may order payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited. (c) If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subdivision (a) or (b).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 63 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Unilogic, Inc. v. Burroughs Corp. (California Court of Appeal 1992, 10 Cal. App. 4th 612)“…ommingled software after termination of the project. Civil Code section 3426.3 provides several measures of damages up…”
- Ajaxo Inc. v. E Trade Group, Inc. (California Court of Appeal 2005, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 221)“…permitted by law. [f] Unjust enrichment damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 3426.3 according to proof at trial, [f] Reason…”
- Applied Medical Distribution Corp. v. Jarrells (California Court of Appeal 2024)“…t is available once misappropriation has been established. (Civ. Code, § 3426.3, subd. (a).) “Section 3 of the [Uniform…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 3426.4In 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 willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party. Recoverable costs hereunder shall include a reasonable sum to cover the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the prevailing party.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 76 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (California Court of Appeal 2007, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1)“…iling party may be entitled.” (Italics added.) In addition, Civil Code section 3426.4 provides that when a claim for misappro…”
- Vacco Industries, Inc. v. Van Den Berg (California Court of Appeal 1992, 5 Cal. App. 4th 34)“…ade Secrets Act (Civ. Code, §§ 3426-3426.10) as provided in Civil Code section 3426.4 10 and under the third par…”
- Amn Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 5th District 2018, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 577)“…ring, the court awarded defendants attorney fees under both Civil Code section 3426.4 and Code of Civil Procedure section 102…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 3426.6In 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 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 48 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- MGA Entertainment v. Mattel (California Court of Appeal 2019)“…cise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.” (Civ. Code, § 3426.6.) The California rule on delayed…”
- Kolani v. Gluska (California Court of Appeal 1998, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 257)“…the statute of limitations on such claims is three years. (Civ. Code, § 3426.6.) Appellant’s state complaint was filed…”
- Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran (California Court of Appeal 2009, 179 Cal. App. 4th 949)“…nably should have learned about, these patent filings. (Cf. Civ. Code, § 3426.6 [trade secret misappropriation claim ac…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 3426.7In force
(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided, this title does not supersede any statute relating to misappropriation of a trade secret, or any statute otherwise regulating trade secrets. (b) This title does not affect (1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, (2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or (3) criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret. (c) This title does not affect the disclosure of a record by a state or local agency under the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code). Any determination as to whether the disclosure of a record under the California Public Records Act constitutes a misappropriation of a trade secret and the rights and remedies with respect thereto shall be made pursuant to the law in effect before the operative date of this title.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 72 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Guild Mortgage Company v. CrossCounty Mortgage (California Court of Appeal 2026)“…also Silvaco, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 232 [describing Civil Code section 3426.7 as “vexingly oblique”].) The inte…”
- Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (California Court of Appeal 2010, 184 Cal. App. 4th 210)“…only when the UTSA applies. See Civ. Code § 3426.7. [][] Intel argued . . . that Silvaco’s…”
- Angelica Textile Services Inc. v. Park (California Court of Appeal 2013, 220 Cal. App. 4th 495)“…if it is based on the misappropriation of a trade secret. (Civ. Code, § 3426.7, subd. (b)(1).) Moreover, UTSA does no…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 3426In forcecited in 2 of our articles
This title may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 303 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Pavlovich v. Superior Court (California Supreme Court 2002, 127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 329)“…re. California’s adoption of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code, § 3426 et seq.) reflects both its common conce…”
- Ajaxo Inc. v. E Trade Group, Inc. (California Court of Appeal 2005, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 221)“…tion under the provisions of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code, §§ 3426-3426.il), 22 and under the…”
- Amn Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 5th District 2018, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 577)“…rade secrets as set forth in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Civil Code sections 3426 et seq . (UTSA). Defendants filed a c…”
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)
United States Code Title 18
§ 1836Civil proceedingsIn forcecited in 56 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, Alaska Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Arizona Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1833Exceptions to prohibitionsIn forcecited in 47 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: Arkansas Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Colorado Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Connecticut Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1838Construction with other lawsIn forcecited in 56 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: Delaware Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, District of Columbia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Florida Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1831Economic espionageIn forcecited in 27 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
California Business and Professions Code
§ 16600In force
(a) Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void. (b) (1) This section shall be read broadly, in accordance with Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, to void the application of any noncompete agreement in an employment context, or any noncompete clause in an employment contract, no matter how narrowly tailored, that does not satisfy an exception in this chapter. (2) This subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law. (c) This section shall not be limited to contracts where the person being restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business is a party to the contract.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 280 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Blank v. Kirwan (California Supreme Court 1985, 39 Cal. 3d 311)“…o constitute a cause of action for unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 16600. The point is cursorily presented and,…”
- Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP (California Supreme Court 2008, 44 Cal. 4th 937)“…ed that the 1997 noncompetition agreement was invalid under Business and Professions Code section 16600, and it was therefore wrongful for Ande…”
- Whyte v. Schlage Lock Company (California Court of Appeal 2002, 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 277)“…e secrets, but an injunction restricting employment. Business and Professions Code section 16600 generally prohibits covenants not to co…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Sources and References
- California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426 to 3426.11(leginfo.legislature.ca.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)
- Official statute: California Business and Professions Code § 16600(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov