Hawaii Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines

Hawaii's trade secret protections come from the Hawaii Uniform Trade Secrets Act (HUTSA), Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 482B-1 to 482B-9, enacted in 1989. Under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 482B-7, a civil claim for misappropriation must be brought within three years from the date the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.

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 information on how the Trade Secret Laws by State framework applies in Hawaii, consult a licensed Hawaii attorney.

Does Hawaii Have a Trade Secret Law?

Hawaii enacted the Hawaii Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1989, codified at Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 482B-1 to 482B-9. HUTSA closely follows the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) developed by the Uniform Law Commission and replaced Hawaii's prior common-law approach to misappropriation claims. The Act provides Hawaii businesses with a defined statutory cause of action, a clear set of remedies, and preemption of duplicative tort claims based on the same underlying conduct. Hawaii courts interpreting HUTSA look to the UTSA commentary and to decisions from other UTSA-adopting jurisdictions as persuasive authority, consistent with the Act’s origins as a Uniform Law Commission model statute intended to promote consistency among adopting states. Hawaii businesses also have access to the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, which layered a federal civil remedy on top of state law without displacing HUTSA.

What Counts as a Trade Secret and Misappropriation Under HUTSA?

Under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 482B-2, a trade secret is information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that satisfies two requirements. First, the information must derive 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. Second, the information must be the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

Hawaii courts assess whether protective measures are reasonable by looking at the totality of a business's security practices rather than applying a rigid checklist. Recognized measures include requiring employees, contractors, and vendors to sign nondisclosure agreements; restricting access to confidential systems on a need-to-know basis; marking documents and files as proprietary or confidential; and providing training on information security obligations. A business does not need to pursue every possible precaution, but must demonstrate deliberate and consistent effort to keep the information secret.

Misappropriation under § 482B-2 includes acquiring another’s trade secret while knowing or having reason to know it was acquired by improper means. The listed improper means include theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage. It also covers disclosure or use without express or implied consent by someone who used improper means, or who at disclosure or use knew or had reason to know the information came through improper means or a source or circumstances imposing a secrecy or limited-use duty. A further branch covers someone who, before materially changing position, knew or had reason to know it was a trade secret acquired by accident or mistake. Section 482B-2 lists improper means but does not expressly mention reverse engineering or independent derivation. It should not be cited as an express statutory exception for those activities; liability depends on the definition of misappropriation and the facts.

Remedies and the Limitations Period Under HUTSA

A civil claim under HUTSA must be filed within three years after the misappropriation was discovered or should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 482B-7). The three-year period aligns with the UTSA baseline and matches the limitations period under the federal DTSA. Courts apply a discovery rule, meaning the period begins when the trade-secret owner knew or had reason to know that misappropriation occurred, not necessarily when the actual misappropriation took place. Continuing misappropriation that began before the filing period opened does not restart the limitations clock.

Available remedies under HUTSA include:

• Injunctive relief (§ 482B-3): A court may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation and may extend an injunction to eliminate any commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from misappropriation. In exceptional circumstances where an injunction would be inequitable, a court may permit continued use subject to payment of a reasonable royalty.
• Damages (§ 482B-4): The claimant may recover actual loss caused by misappropriation plus any unjust enrichment not accounted for in the actual-loss calculation. Where neither actual loss nor unjust enrichment is provable with adequate certainty, the court may award a reasonable royalty for unauthorized use.
• Exemplary damages (§ 482B-4): When misappropriation is willful and malicious, the court may award up to twice the compensatory damages calculated above.
• Attorney fees (§ 482B-5): Available to the prevailing party when a misappropriation claim is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists.

Under § 482B-8, HUTSA supersedes conflicting tort law governing civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret. This means that a plaintiff who brings a HUTSA claim generally cannot simultaneously pursue a duplicative common-law tort claim, such as conversion or unfair competition, based on the same misappropriation conduct. HUTSA does not affect contract claims, criminal liability, civil remedies not based on misappropriation, or remedies that are not in conflict with the Act.

How the Federal DTSA Applies in Hawaii

The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, enacted in May 2016, gives Hawaii businesses a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation that runs alongside HUTSA. Because 18 U.S.C. § 1838 provides that the DTSA does not preempt or displace any other provision of law, HUTSA remains fully in force. Hawaii litigants commonly plead both HUTSA and DTSA claims in the same federal proceeding when misappropriation involves interstate or foreign commerce.

Key DTSA features that apply in Hawaii:

• Limitations: three years from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), identical to Hawaii's state period under § 482B-7.
• Remedies: injunctive relief, actual damages plus unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty, exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award for willful and malicious misappropriation, and attorney fees (§ 1836(b)(3)).
• Ex parte seizure: in extraordinary circumstances a federal court may authorize the seizure of property to prevent the propagation or dissemination of a trade secret (§ 1836(b)(2)).
• Whistleblower immunity and notice: individuals who confidentially disclose a trade secret to a government official or attorney to report a suspected legal violation are immune from DTSA and state trade-secret liability (§ 1833(b)(1)). Confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must provide written notice of this immunity; omitting it forfeits exemplary damages and attorney fees in a DTSA action tied to that agreement (§ 1833(b)(3)).

Criminal trade-secret theft in Hawaii may also be prosecuted under the federal Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832.

This article presents general legal information as of 2026-06-25 and is not legal advice. Trade secret law involves detailed factual and legal analysis that varies by situation; consult a licensed Hawaii attorney for guidance specific to your circumstances.

Related articles

• Trade Secret Laws by State
• Georgia Trade Secret Laws
• Idaho Trade Secret Laws
• Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?

Last updated: 2026-06-25.

Frequently Asked Questions

What qualifies as a trade secret under Hawaii law?

Under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 482B-2, information qualifies as a trade secret if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means, and if the owner takes efforts reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Protected information may include formulas, programs, processes, methods, techniques, and compilations, among other forms.

How long do I have to file a trade secret lawsuit in Hawaii?

Under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 482B-7, you have three years from the date you discovered or reasonably should have discovered the misappropriation to file a civil HUTSA claim. The same three-year period applies under the federal DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)).

What remedies are available for trade secret misappropriation in Hawaii?

HUTSA provides injunctive relief, damages based on actual loss plus unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty, up to twice the damages for willful and malicious misappropriation, and attorney fees when a misappropriation claim is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists (Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 482B-3 to 482B-5).

Do nondisclosure agreements help protect trade secrets in Hawaii?

Yes. Hawaii courts consider whether the owner took reasonable measures to maintain secrecy, and a well-drafted NDA is evidence of those efforts. Under the federal DTSA, any NDA or confidentiality agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must include a whistleblower-immunity notice, or the employer forfeits the right to seek exemplary damages and attorney fees in a federal DTSA action tied to that agreement.

Can a Hawaii business bring both a HUTSA claim and a federal DTSA claim?

Yes. The DTSA does not preempt HUTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so Hawaii trade-secret owners may assert both claims simultaneously, commonly in federal district court when the misappropriation involves interstate or foreign commerce. Both carry a three-year limitations period running from discovery, and the remedial frameworks are substantially similar.