Iowa
Iowa 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
Iowa enacted the Iowa Uniform Trade Secrets Act, codified at Iowa Code §§ 550.1 to 550.8, in 1990. The statute closely tracks the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and sets a three-year civil limitations period running from the date misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered (Iowa Code § 550.8).
This guide is part of our Trade Secret Laws by State series.
Information last verified on 2026-06-25. This article presents general legal information, not legal advice. For guidance on your specific situation, see Trade Secret Laws by State and consult an attorney licensed in Iowa.
Does Iowa have a trade secret law?
Yes. Iowa enacted the Iowa Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1990, codified at Iowa Code §§ 550.1 to 550.8. The statute follows the UTSA framework used by 48 other states and the District of Columbia, so Iowa's definitions, standards for misappropriation, and remedies closely track the national model. The law covers all qualifying forms of information, including manufacturing processes, customer lists, pricing models, formulas, and software source code, without requiring registration with any government agency. Unlike several neighboring UTSA states, Iowa Code chapter 550 does not include a separate section addressing the Act’s effect on other law or preemption of conflicting tort claims.
What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in Iowa?
Iowa Code § 550.2 defines a trade secret as information that satisfies two requirements: (1) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable by proper means by persons who could profit from its use; and (2) the information is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Both elements must be present. A customer database, proprietary formula, business strategy, or piece of software code can qualify so long as the owner actively guards it and gains a competitive advantage from keeping it confidential. Losing secrecy by any means, including inadvertent public disclosure, ends protection permanently.
Misappropriation under Iowa Code § 550.2 takes two forms. The first is acquisition by improper means, which includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or electronic espionage. The second is disclosure or use of a trade secret without consent by someone who knew or had reason to know that the secret was acquired by improper means, or who was subject to a duty of confidence and exceeded that duty.
Two limits apply. Reverse engineering a lawfully obtained product is a proper means of learning information and does not constitute misappropriation under Iowa law. Likewise, independent development of the same information is lawful.
Remedies and the limitations period in Iowa
Iowa Code § 550.3 authorizes injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation for as long as the trade secret would otherwise have remained protectable. Where an injunction would be inequitable, courts may instead require payment of a reasonable royalty for the period of authorized use.
Monetary remedies under Iowa Code § 550.4 include actual damages for losses caused by the misappropriation, plus any unjust enrichment not already captured by the damages figure, or a reasonable royalty as an alternative measure. For willful and malicious misappropriation, Iowa Code § 550.4 also permits exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory award. Under Iowa Code § 550.6, the court may award actual and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party for a bad-faith misappropriation claim, a motion to terminate an injunction made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation.
Iowa's limitations period is three years (Iowa Code § 550.8), running from the date misappropriation was discovered or, by reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim; the three-year period begins from the first act the owner discovered or reasonably should have discovered, not from the most recent act.
How the federal DTSA applies in Iowa
The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839) gives Iowa businesses a parallel federal civil claim when the misappropriated secret relates to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce. The DTSA does not displace Iowa Code §§ 550.1 to 550.8 (18 U.S.C. § 1838), and Iowa owners routinely bring both state and federal claims in the same lawsuit.
The DTSA includes procedural tools unavailable under Iowa state law alone, including an ex parte civil seizure application to recover misappropriated materials in extraordinary circumstances (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)). The federal limitations period mirrors Iowa's: three years from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)).
One compliance requirement applies directly to Iowa employers: any confidentiality agreement or nondisclosure agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must contain the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice required by 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3). Omitting that notice forfeits the right to recover exemplary damages and attorney fees from that employee under the DTSA, even for willful theft. The federal Economic Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832) also applies to criminal trade-secret theft in Iowa.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes Iowa trade-secret law as of 2026-06-25 and does not address your specific facts. Trade-secret disputes are fact-intensive and limitations periods are strict. Consult an attorney licensed in Iowa before taking action.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Indiana Trade Secret Laws
- Kansas Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret under Iowa law?
Under Iowa Code § 550.2, information qualifies as a trade secret if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by others who could profit from it, and the owner takes reasonable steps to maintain its secrecy. Common examples are customer lists, formulas, source code, and pricing models. Protection ends permanently if the information becomes public by any means.
How long do I have to file a trade secret lawsuit in Iowa?
Three years from the date misappropriation was discovered or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence (Iowa Code § 550.8). Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim starting from the first act the owner discovered or should have discovered, so prompt investigation is important. The parallel federal DTSA claim carries the same three-year limitations period (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)).
What remedies are available for trade secret theft in Iowa?
Injunctions to stop actual or threatened misappropriation (Iowa Code § 550.3), actual damages plus unjust enrichment or a reasonable royalty (Iowa Code § 550.4), exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award for willful and malicious misappropriation (Iowa Code § 550.4), and actual and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party for willful and malicious misappropriation, a bad-faith misappropriation claim, or a motion to terminate an injunction made or resisted in bad faith (Iowa Code § 550.6). Federal DTSA remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3) can be pleaded alongside Iowa claims.
Do NDAs and confidentiality agreements protect trade secrets in Iowa?
Yes. Confidentiality agreements support the reasonable-secrecy-measures element required by Iowa Code § 550.2 and strengthen a trade-secret claim. Any NDA signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must also include the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b). Omitting it forfeits exemplary damages and attorney fees from that employee under federal law, even for willful misappropriation.
How does the federal DTSA interact with Iowa trade secret law?
The DTSA (18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839) provides a parallel federal claim when the secret relates to interstate or foreign commerce. It does not preempt Iowa Code §§ 550.1 to 550.8 (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so Iowa owners often plead both. DTSA-only features include civil ex parte seizure (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)) and the whistleblower notice requirement. Both laws share the UTSA two-part definition and a three-year limitations period.
Updates
Corrected Iowa’s attorney-fee grounds and aligned the body, takeaways, and FAQ.
Corrected fourteen mis-numbered Iowa Code citations throughout the article (definitions, injunctions, damages, attorney fees, and the statute of limitations were each cited one or more sections off) and removed a preemption claim attributed to a section that does not contain it.
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.
Iowa Code, Chapter 550: TRADE SECRETS
§ 550.4Damages.In force
1. Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of a person’s position occurs prior to acquiring knowledge of a misappropriation and renders a monetary recovery inequitable, an owner of a trade secret is entitled to recover damages for the misappropriation. Damages may include the actual loss caused by the misappropriation, and the unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation which is not taken into account in computing the 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 person’s unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret. 2. If a person commits a willful and malicious misappropriation, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice the award made under subsection 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
§ 550.3Injunctive relief.In force
1. The owner of a trade secret may petition the district court to enjoin an actual or threatened misappropriation. Upon application to the district court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist. However, the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate a commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation. 2. In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use of a trade secret upon payment of a reasonable royalty. The payment of a royalty shall continue for a period no longer than the period for which use of the trade secret may be prohibited. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, a material and prejudicial change of position of the person prior to acquiring knowledge of a misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable. 3. In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 18 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Clearly Compliant, L.L.C., plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee v. Theresa M. Bornbach and Charity Resources, L.L.C., D/B/A Capstone Charity Resources, L.L.C., defendants-appellees/cross-appellants. (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2017)“…or past damage. Id. at 779-80 (citations omitted). Iowa Code section 550.3(1) allows “[t]he owner of a trade secre…”
- Economy Roofing & Insulating Co. v. Zumaris (Supreme Court of Iowa 1995, 538 N.W.2d 641)“…onomy’s application for temporary injunctive relief. Iowa Code section 550.3(1) (1991) provides that “[t]he owner of…”
- Cemen Tech, Inc. v. Three D Industries, L.L.C. (Supreme Court of Iowa 2008, 753 N.W.2d 1)“…or may request monetary damages for such misappropriation. Iowa Code §§ 550.3 (1), 550.4(1). A trade secret is define…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 550.2Definitions.In force
As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. “Improper means” means theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage, including but not limited to espionage through an electronic device. 2. “Knows” or “knowledge” means that a person has actual knowledge of information or a circumstance or that the person has reason to know of the information or circumstance. 3. “Misappropriation” means doing any of the following: a. Acquisition of a trade secret by a person who knows that the trade secret is acquired by improper means. b. Disclosure or use of a trade secret by a person who uses improper means to acquire the trade secret. c. Disclosure or use of a trade secret by a person who at the time of disclosure or use, knows that the trade secret is derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire the trade secret. d. Disclosure or use of a trade secret by a person who at the time of disclosure or use knows that the trade secret is acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use. e.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 43 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Olson v. Nieman's, Ltd. (Supreme Court of Iowa 1998, 579 N.W.2d 299)“…le under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Iowa Code § 550.2 (4) (emphasis added). Nieman arg…”
- Economy Roofing & Insulating Co. v. Zumaris (Supreme Court of Iowa 1995, 538 N.W.2d 641)“…titled to recover damages for the misappropriation.” Iowa Code section 550.2(4) defines a trade secret as inf…”
- Cemen Tech, Inc. v. Three D Industries, L.L.C. (Supreme Court of Iowa 2008, 753 N.W.2d 1)“…le under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Iowa Code § 550.2 (4). The Restatement (Third) of…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 550.8Statute of limitations.In force
An action for misappropriation under this chapter must be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. For 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 legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Revere Transducers, Inc. v. Deere & Co. (Supreme Court of Iowa 1999, 595 N.W.2d 751)“…ered by exercise of reasonable diligence. See Iowa Code § 550.8 ; Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-577. Irres…”
- CMI Roadbuilding, Inc. v. Iowa Parts, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2019, 920 F.3d 560)“…for trade secret misappropriation. See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(d); Iowa Code § 550.8. CMI Roadbuilding brought the instant a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 550.6Attorney fees.In force
The court may award actual and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action under this chapter if any of the following is applicable: 1. A claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith. 2. A motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith. 3. A person acts willfully and maliciously in the misappropriation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Clearly Compliant, L.L.C., plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee v. Theresa M. Bornbach and Charity Resources, L.L.C., D/B/A Capstone Charity Resources, L.L.C., defendants-appellees/cross-appellants. (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2017)“…court has not abused its discretion in denying any relief. Iowa Code section 550.6 provides, in part, that the court “may…”
- Richard A. Primmer, Pamela Primmer and Primmer Transportation, Inc. v. John Langer, Lance Lillibridge and Lillibridge Transportation, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2014)“…nts filed a motion for attorney fees and costs pursuant to Iowa Code section 550.6. The district court granted t…”
- 205 CORP. v. Brandow (Supreme Court of Iowa 1994, 517 N.W.2d 548)“…(2)) and the denial of attorney’s fees (discretionary under Iowa Code section 550.6). Tax costs fifty percent to def…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 550.1Short title.In force
This chapter 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 legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2008
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Teleconnect Company v. Michael Ensrud (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1995, 55 F.3d 357)“…ecrets in violation of the Iowa Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Iowa Code § 550.1 , et seq. (1994). At the heart of Telec…”
- Brower v. Flint Ink Corp. (District Court, N.D. Iowa 1994, 865 F. Supp. 564)“…ation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act as enacted by Iowa, Iowa Code § 550.1 et seq. Jurisdiction over…”
- Sun Media Systems, Inc. v. KDSM, LLC (District Court, S.D. Iowa 2008, 564 F. Supp. 2d 946)“…ecret” under the Iowa Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“IUTSA”), Iowa Code § 550.1 et seq., which provides that “an owner…”
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: Alabama Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Arkansas Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Alaska 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: Arizona Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, California Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Colorado 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: Trade Secret Laws by State: UTSA & DTSA (2026), District of Columbia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Connecticut Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1832Theft of trade secretsIn forcecited in 29 of our articles
Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to a product or service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly— steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information; without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information; receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 260 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Nosal (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2012, 676 F.3d 854)“…Congress did just that in the federal trade secrets statute—18 U.S.C. § 1832—where it used the common law terms for…”
- United States v. Kai-Lo Hsu, A/K/A James Hsu. United States of America v. Chester S. Ho. United States of America (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1998, 155 F.3d 189)“…and a conspiracy to steal trade secrets, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1832 (a)(4) and (a)(5). B. The…”
- United States v. Martin (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2000, 228 F.3d 1)“…16- Espionage Act of 1996, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1832(a)(5).6 In order to find a defendant g…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Florida Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Idaho Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Iowa Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Iowa Code §§ 550.1 to 550.8(legis.iowa.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)
- Statutory definitions and attorney-fee grounds(www.legis.iowa.gov).gov