Nevada Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines

Nevada adopted the Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 600A.010 to 600A.100, in 1987, providing a UTSA-aligned civil framework for trade secret misappropriation claims. Actions must be commenced within three years of the date misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered under § 600A.080.

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 a full overview of trade secret protections across the country, see Trade Secret Laws by State.

Does Nevada have a trade secret law?

Nevada enacted the Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act (NUTSA) in 1987, codified at Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 600A.010 to 600A.100. The statute tracks the Uniform Law Commission's model closely, providing a civil remedy for misappropriation arising from the acquisition, disclosure, or use of trade secrets by improper means or in breach of a duty of confidence. Nevada's technology, gaming, and hospitality industries make trade secret protection particularly significant in the state, and the NUTSA applies across all industries and information types. Federal criminal liability under the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832, supplements the civil framework for egregious theft of trade secrets.

What counts as a trade secret in Nevada?

Section 600A.030 of the Nevada Revised Statutes defines a trade secret as information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that satisfies two conditions.

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.

Both conditions must be satisfied simultaneously. Misappropriation under § 600A.020 means acquisition of a trade secret by improper means (theft, bribery, misrepresentation, espionage, or inducing breach of a duty to maintain secrecy) or disclosure and use without consent by someone who knew or had reason to know the secret was obtained improperly or through breach of a duty.

Reverse engineering and independent development are lawful under the NUTSA. A competitor who arrives at the same information through legitimate means has not committed misappropriation.

Remedies and the limitations period in Nevada

Section 600A.040 authorizes courts to grant injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation. When an injunction would be unreasonably harsh under the circumstances, a court may condition continued use of the trade secret on payment of a reasonable royalty.

Section 600A.050 governs damages. A claimant may recover (a) actual loss caused by misappropriation plus unjust enrichment of the misappropriator not already accounted for in the actual-loss award, or (b) a reasonable royalty for the unauthorized use. When misappropriation is willful and malicious, a court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice the compensatory damages.

Section 600A.060 allows attorney fee awards to the prevailing party when a claim or defense was made in bad faith, or when willful and malicious misappropriation is established.

The limitations period under § 600A.080 is three years, measured from when the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. Nevada's period matches the standard UTSA window without deviation.

How the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act applies in Nevada

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, effective May 11, 2016, established a federal civil cause of action for misappropriation when the secret relates to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. That commerce nexus is met by nearly all Nevada commercial information.

The DTSA does not preempt state law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so Nevada claimants routinely plead NUTSA and DTSA claims together in a single action, preserving access to a federal forum and federal procedural tools.

Key DTSA features applicable in Nevada:

• Ex parte seizure: Federal courts may order immediate seizure of property to prevent propagation or disclosure of a trade secret in extraordinary circumstances (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)).
• Whistleblower immunity: An individual who discloses a trade secret to a government official or attorney solely to report a suspected legal violation is immune from DTSA liability (18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)). Employers must include notice of this immunity in any confidentiality agreement signed or materially updated after May 11, 2016, or forfeit the right to seek DTSA exemplary damages and attorney fees.
• Three-year federal limitations period: The DTSA carries a three-year limitations period from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), which aligns with Nevada's state limitations period.

Protecting trade secrets in Nevada: practical steps

Reasonable secrecy measures are a definitional element of trade-secret status under the NUTSA, and Nevada courts assess whether a holder's protective efforts were proportionate to the value of the information. Steps recognized as supporting trade-secret status across UTSA jurisdictions include:

• Written non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with employees, contractors, and business partners, updated after May 11, 2016, to include the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice
• Password protection, encryption, and role-based digital access controls restricting sensitive files to personnel who need them
• Physical security measures for laboratories, data centers, or storage areas containing sensitive materials
• Consistent and systematic confidentiality labeling on documents, presentations, and prototypes
• Structured employee departure protocols covering device return, system-access revocation, and written reminders of continuing confidentiality obligations

Nevada courts look for consistency: selective secrecy, where information is protected in some relationships but shared freely in others, can undermine the reasonable-efforts element and defeat trade-secret status.

This article presents general legal information as of 2026-06-25 and is not legal advice. Laws change, and individual circumstances vary. Consult a lawyer licensed in Nevada for guidance on your specific situation.

Related articles

• Trade Secret Laws by State
• Nebraska Trade Secret Laws
• New Hampshire Trade Secret Laws
• Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?

Last updated: 2026-06-25.