Colorado
Colorado 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 9, 2026. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Colorado's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 7-74-101 to 7-74-110, enacted in 1986, provides civil remedies for misappropriation of trade secrets across the state. Claimants must bring suit within three years of discovering, or reasonably being able to discover, the alleged misappropriation.
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 Colorado.
Does Colorado have a trade secret law?
Yes. Colorado enacted its Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1986, codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 7-74-101 to 7-74-110. The Act covers civil misappropriation claims and preempts conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other civil claims based on the same conduct (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-108). Colorado also criminalizes theft of trade secrets under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-408. Federal criminal liability for intentional trade secret theft may arise under the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832. The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, also provides a parallel civil claim that Colorado businesses may assert alongside a state claim. Colorado’s own statutory definitions govern whether information qualifies as a trade secret and whether misappropriation occurred.
What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Colorado?
Colorado’s definition of trade secret under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102(4) covers scientific or technical information, designs, processes, procedures, formulas, improvements, confidential business or financial information, listings of names, addresses, or telephone numbers, and other information relating to a business or profession. The information must be secret and of value. The owner must have taken measures to prevent it from becoming available to anyone other than persons the owner selected to have access for limited purposes.
Misappropriation under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102(2) means acquiring a trade secret by improper means, or disclosing or using it without consent when the person knows or has reason to know it was obtained under a duty of secrecy or by improper means. Reverse engineering and independent development are lawful and do not constitute misappropriation under Colorado law.
Remedies and the limitations period in Colorado
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-103 authorizes temporary and final injunctions, including affirmative acts, on reasonable equitable terms to prevent or restrain actual or threatened misappropriation.
Damages recoverable under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-104 include actual loss caused by misappropriation plus unjust enrichment not already accounted for in the actual-loss figure. As an alternative to other methods of measuring damages, § 7-74-104(1) permits a reasonable royalty for unauthorized disclosure or use.
Under § 7-74-104(2), fraud, malice, or willful and wanton disregard of the injured party’s right and feelings allows the court or jury to award exemplary damages no greater than the award under subsection (1), potentially doubling the total recovery. Attorney fees are available when a misappropriation claim is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith or when willful and malicious misappropriation is established (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-105).
The limitations period is three years, measured from the date misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-107). Continuing misappropriation does not indefinitely extend the period for acts that were already discoverable.
How the federal DTSA applies in Colorado
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, provides 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 Colorado's UTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1838), and plaintiffs regularly plead both claims together in a single action in Colorado federal courts.
The DTSA's three-year limitations period runs from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), consistent with Colorado's state period. 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), informing the signatory that federal law protects disclosures made to government officials or attorneys in confidence to report suspected violations. Omitting the notice forfeits the right to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees in a DTSA action. Colorado employers who use NDAs with employees and contractors should audit their template agreements for this requirement.
As of 2026-06-25, this article reflects Colorado statutes and federal law as publicly available. Laws change; consult a lawyer licensed in Colorado before taking or forgoing any legal action.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Utah Trade Secret Laws
- Wyoming Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Colorado's UTSA preempt civil claims for theft of confidential information?
Yes, to the extent a civil claim arises from the same conduct as the trade secret misappropriation. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-108 preempts conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other civil claims based on the same facts. Claims that rest on entirely distinct conduct, as well as contract claims and criminal charges, are not preempted by the Colorado UTSA.
Does Colorado restrict non-compete agreements alongside trade secret law?
Yes. Colorado has separate non-compete law, including significant restrictions under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113. Trade secret protection and non-compete clauses are legally distinct tools that often overlap in employment contexts. Colorado employers should evaluate both when designing agreements for employees who have access to sensitive business information.
When does the three-year limitation period start in Colorado?
The period starts when the plaintiff discovered the misappropriation or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered it (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-107). Colorado courts apply a discovery rule; the clock does not automatically begin on the date the first act of misappropriation occurred.
Does Colorado law cover business plans and customer lists as trade secrets?
They can qualify. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102(4) expressly covers confidential business or financial information and listings of names, addresses, or telephone numbers. Business plans may fit those categories, but plans are not separately named in the statute. The information must be secret and of value, and the owner must take measures to limit availability to selected persons for limited purposes.
What notice must a Colorado employer include in confidentiality agreements?
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3), any confidentiality agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016, must include a notice informing the signatory that federal law permits confidential disclosure of trade secrets to government officials or attorneys to report or investigate suspected legal violations. Omitting this notice forfeits the employer's right to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees under the DTSA in any subsequent misappropriation claim.
Updates
Corrected Colorado’s trade-secret definition, damages and fee standards, and added its state criminal statute.
Corrected the description of Colorado's exemplary-damages cap for willful and malicious trade-secret misappropriation, which the article had overstated.
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.
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 7: Corporations and Associations
§ 7-74-104DamagesIn force
(1) Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders a monetary recovery inequitable, a complainant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. Damages may include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret. (2) If the misappropriation is attended by circumstances of fraud, malice, or a willful and wanton disregard of the injured party's right and feelings, the court or the jury may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding the award made under subsection (1) of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
§ 7-74-103Injunctive reliefIn force
Temporary and final injunctions including affirmative acts may be granted on such equitable terms as the court deems reasonable to prevent or restrain actual or threatened misappropriation of a trade secret.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- DTC Energy Grp., Inc. v. Hirschfeld (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2018, 912 F.3d 1263)“…d the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-103 ; and Ally's unfair competitio…”
- The Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd. (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1993, 9 F.3d 823)“…nd injunctive relief for misappropriation of trade secrets. Colo.Rev.Stat. 7-74-103 and 7-74-104. Misappropriation is defin…”
- First Western Capital Management Co. v. Malamed (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2017, 874 F.3d 1136)“…cause both the DTSA, 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A), and CUTSA, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-103, provide for injunctive relief to prev…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 7-74-102DefinitionsIn force
As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires: (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 such person's 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 such person's position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 49 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- The Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd. (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1993, 9 F.3d 823)“…ompany as stated in the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act, C.R.S. 7-74-102(2).” ApltApx. at 8. The parties do not…”
- Hertz v. Luzenac Group (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2009, 576 F.3d 1103)“…la, [or] improvement . . . which is secret and of value.”2 Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 7-74-102(4). The essential test in Colorado for…”
- L-3 Communications Corp. v. Jaxon Engineering & Maintenance, Inc. (District Court, D. Colorado 2015, 125 F. Supp. 3d 1155)“…t it possessed a “trade secret,” as that term is defined in C.R.S. § 7-74-102(4) — that is, scientific, technical, bu…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 7-74-107Statute of limitationsIn force
An action for misappropriation of a trade secret shall 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 olls.info
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2012
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Edward H. Phillips v. Awh Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross-Appellants (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2004, 363 F.3d 1207)“…a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 7-74-107 (1998). The Colorado Supreme Court has…”
- United States v. Denny (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2012, 694 F.3d 1185)“…exercise of reasonable diligence.”), and state, see, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-107 (1986) (“An action for misappropriatio…”
- Chasteen v. Unisia Jecs Corp. (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2000, 216 F.3d 1212)“…s to the misappropriation claim. See Minn. Stat. § 325C.06; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-107.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 7-74-105Attorney feesIn 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 fees to the prevailing party.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- M.D. Mark, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp. (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2009, 565 F.3d 753)“…rd reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 7-74-105. Obviously, the only portion of this st…”
- Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando American, Inc. (District Court, D. Colorado 1999, 798 F. Supp. 1499)“…Chauffeur program. Pursuant to § 505 of the Act, and C.R.S. § 7-74-105, Plaintiff shall also recover its costs…”
- Christou v. Beatport, LLC (District Court, D. Colorado 2012, 849 F. Supp. 2d 1055)“…warrants an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to C.R.S. § 7-74-105. Ciena does not stand for the propo…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 7-74-108Effect on other lawIn force
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, this article displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret. (2) This article does not affect: (a) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; (b) Other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or (c) Criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Powell Products, Inc. v. Marks (District Court, D. Colorado 1996, 948 F. Supp. 1469)“…o, I am convinced that it does not sweep so broadly. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 7-74-108 states: (1) Except as provided i…”
- L-3 Communications Corp. v. Jaxon Engineering & Maintenance, Inc. (District Court, D. Colorado 2012, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1066)“…ach Defendant. With regard to the Defendants’ argument that C.R.S. § 7-74-108 preempts any tort claims of unjust enri…”
- Larsen v. Consolidated Pet Foods, Inc. (In Re S & D Foods, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado 1992, 144 B.R. 121)“…to the party whose secret is revealed. See, C.R.S. § 7-74-108. There is no Colorado law interp…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 7-74-101Short titleIn force
This article shall be known and may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 46 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Image Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co. (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2006, 459 F.3d 1044)“…lds had misappropriated 1mage’s trade secrets, contrary to Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 7-74-101 through -110; and 3) an accounting of…”
- Re/Max, LLC v. Quicken Loans Inc. (District Court, D. Colorado 2018, 295 F. Supp. 3d 1163)“…th Cir. 1993) (citing Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-101 et seq. ). The Colorado Uniform Trade…”
- First Western Capital Management Co. v. Malamed (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2017, 874 F.3d 1136)“…1836 (“DTSA”), and the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 7-74-101 et seq. (“CUTSA”), breach of employment…”
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 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: Trade Secret Laws by State: UTSA & DTSA (2026), Alabama Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Alaska 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: Arizona Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Arkansas Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, California 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: Connecticut Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Delaware Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, District of Columbia 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
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 18: Criminal Code
§ 18-4-408Theft of trade secrets - penaltyIn force
(1) Any person who, with intent to deprive or withhold from the owner thereof the control of a trade secret, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his own use or to the use of another, steals or discloses to an unauthorized person a trade secret, or, without authority, makes or causes to be made a copy of an article representing a trade secret, commits theft of a trade secret. (2) As used in this section: (a) Article means any object, material, device, or substance, or copy thereof, including any writing, record, recording, drawing, sample, specimen, prototype, model, photograph, microorganism, blueprint, or map. (b) Copy means any facsimile, replica, photograph, or other reproduction of an article, and any note, drawing, or sketch made of or from an article. (c) Representing means describing, depicting, containing, constituting, reflecting, or recording.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re Lindsay WINNINGER, an individual and Sports Rehab Consulting LLC, a Colorado limited liability company v. Doris KIRCHNER, an individual and Vail Clinic, Inc. d/b/a Vail Valley Medical Center, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, and Vail Clinic, Inc. d/b/a Vail Valley Medical Center, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, Third-Party v. David J. Cimino, an individual, Third-Party (Supreme Court of Colorado 2021, 488 P.3d 1091)“…s criminal in nature," and " [i] t does not appear that C.R.S. § 18-4-408 contemplates a private civil right of…”
- Satcom Solution and Resources LLC v. Pope (District Court, D. Colorado 2020)“…v. P. 12(b)(6); o Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-408 is dismissed against all Defendants…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 8: Labor and Industry
§ 8-2-113Unlawful to intimidate worker - agreement not to compete - prohibition - exceptions - notice - rules - definitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Legislative intent. The general assembly intends to preserve existing state and federal case law in effect before August 10, 2022, that: (a) Defines what counts as a covenant not to compete that is prohibited by this section; and (b) Specifies the extent to which a covenant not to compete for the protection of trade secrets must be tailored in scope in order to be enforceable under this section. (1.5) (a) It is unlawful to use force, threats, or other means of intimidation to prevent any person from engaging in any lawful occupation at any place the person sees fit. (b) A person who violates this subsection (1.5) commits a class 2 misdemeanor, as defined in section 18-1.3-501. (2) (a) Except as provided in subsections (2)(b), (2)(d), and (3) of this section, a covenant not to compete that restricts the right of an individual to receive compensation for performance of labor is void.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 41 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Porter Industries, Inc. v. Higgins (Colorado Court of Appeals 1984, 680 P.2d 1339)“…the covenant not to compete is not void under § 8-2-113(2), C.R.S. Sections 8-2-113(2)(b) and (d), which are the only sub-s…”
- King v. PA Consulting Group, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2007, 485 F.3d 577)“…sional staff to executive and management personnel. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113(2). Although PA argues that thes…”
- Occusafe, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. Eg&g Rocky Flats, Inc., a Colorado Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1995, 54 F.3d 618)“…id, there is no liability for causing its breach.”). Colo.Rev.Stat. § 8-2-113(2) broadly states that “[a]ny covenant…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Colorado Non-Compete Laws (2026): Are Non-Competes Enforceable?
Sources and References
- Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 7-74-101 to 7-74-110(leg.colorado.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)
- Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act, §§ 7-74-102 to 7-74-105 (2025)(olls.info).gov
- Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-408, theft of trade secrets(olls.info).gov