New Hampshire
New Hampshire Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 2 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
New Hampshire enacted the New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 350-B:1 to 350-B:9, adopting the Uniform Law Commission's model as its 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 § 350-B:6.
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 New Hampshire have a trade secret law?
New Hampshire enacted the New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets Act (NHUTSA), codified at N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 350-B:1 to 350-B:9. The statute follows 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. New Hampshire courts apply the NHUTSA to a wide range of commercially valuable information, from proprietary software and product formulas to customer databases, provided the definitional requirements are satisfied. Federal criminal exposure for trade secret theft remains available under the Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832.
What counts as a trade secret in New Hampshire?
Section 350-B:1, IV of the New Hampshire 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 are required. Misappropriation under § 350-B:1, II means acquisition 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 NHUTSA. A party that discovers the same information through legitimate means has not committed misappropriation.
Remedies and the limitations period in New Hampshire
Section 350-B:2 authorizes courts to grant injunctions to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation. An injunction may extend beyond the point at which the information loses its secret character to eliminate any commercial advantage gained through the misappropriation. When an injunction would be inequitable under the circumstances, a court may condition continued use on payment of a reasonable royalty.
Section 350-B:3 governs damages. A claimant may recover (a) actual loss caused by the misappropriation plus unjust enrichment of the misappropriator not already reflected 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.
Under § 350-B:4, the court may award reasonable attorney fees 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.
The limitations period under § 350-B:6 is three years, measured from when the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. New Hampshire's period tracks the standard UTSA window without deviation.
How the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act applies in New Hampshire
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, effective May 11, 2016, provides a federal civil claim for misappropriation when the trade secret relates to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. That standard is easily met by most New Hampshire business information.
Because the DTSA does not preempt state law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), New Hampshire claimants may plead both NHUTSA and DTSA claims in a single action, accessing both state courts and a federal forum.
Key DTSA features that supplement New Hampshire state law:
- 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 using confidentiality agreements must include notice of this immunity in any 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 New Hampshire's state period.
Protecting trade secrets in New Hampshire: practical steps
Reasonable secrecy measures are a definitional element of trade-secret status under the NHUTSA, and New Hampshire courts assess whether a holder's protective efforts were proportionate to the value and sensitivity of the information. Steps recognized as relevant to establishing trade-secret status 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 access controls for digital systems and files
- Physical security measures for facilities, storage areas, or documents containing sensitive proprietary information
- Consistent and systematic confidentiality labeling on documents, presentations, and data files
- Structured offboarding procedures for departing employees covering device return, system-access revocation, and written reminders of continuing confidentiality obligations
New Hampshire courts, like other UTSA courts, look for consistency. A company that shares information freely in some contexts while claiming secrecy in others risks losing trade-secret protection because the reasonable-efforts element cannot be satisfied.
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 New Hampshire for guidance on your specific situation.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Nevada Trade Secret Laws
- New Jersey Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What information qualifies as a trade secret under New Hampshire law?
Under N.H. Rev. Stat. § 350-B:1, IV, information qualifies if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by those who could benefit from it, and if the holder has taken reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. Both requirements must be met. Common examples include customer databases, proprietary processes, financial models, and software, provided genuine and consistent secrecy measures are in place.
How long does a New Hampshire trade secret owner have to file a lawsuit?
New Hampshire law provides a three-year limitations period under § 350-B:6, measured from when the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Claims filed after that window are ordinarily time-barred. Because the discovery clock may start before the full scope of misappropriation is apparent, consulting a New Hampshire attorney promptly after suspecting wrongdoing is advisable.
What remedies are available in a New Hampshire trade secret case?
Courts may grant injunctions and award actual loss plus unjust enrichment, or a reasonable royalty. When misappropriation is willful and malicious, exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory award are available under § 350-B:3. Attorney fees may be granted for bad-faith claims or where willful and malicious misappropriation is established. Federal DTSA remedies, including ex parte seizure, are available concurrently.
Are NDAs required to protect trade secrets in New Hampshire?
NDAs are not required by the New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets Act, but they are a strong protective tool. A written NDA helps satisfy the reasonable-efforts element of the trade-secret definition and may support both a contract claim and an NHUTSA misappropriation claim if breached. Any NDA executed after May 11, 2016, should include the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice to preserve access to federal exemplary damages and attorney fees.
Can a New Hampshire plaintiff bring both state and federal trade secret claims?
Yes. The federal DTSA does not preempt the New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets Act, so a claimant may plead both NHUTSA and DTSA claims in the same action. The DTSA adds the option of ex parte seizure relief and a federal forum. Both frameworks carry three-year limitations periods measured from discovery, and both authorize injunctions, actual damages or a reasonable royalty, and exemplary damages for willful and malicious misappropriation.
Updates
Corrected the statutory grounds for attorney-fee awards in New Hampshire trade-secret cases.
Updated the citation link to New Hampshire's trade secret statute, which had moved to a new government host under the correct title number.
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.
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE XXXI TRADE AND COMMERCE, CHAPTER 350-B UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT
§ 350-B:2Injunctive Relief.In force
I. 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 reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation. II. In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time for which use could have been prohibited. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable. III. 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 gc.nh.gov
§ 350-B:1Definitions.In force
As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise: I. "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. II. "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: (1) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (2) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; or acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (3) Before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake. III.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Vention Medical Advanced Components, Inc. d/b/a Advanced Polymers, a Vention Medical Company v. Nikolaos D. Pappas & a. (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2018, 188 A.3d 261)“…easonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” RSA 350-B:1, IV. The defendants first argue…”
- American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire v. New Hampshire Division of State Police (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2023)“…CS Health, 167 N.H. at 587, 588 (emphasis omitted) (quoting RSA 350-B:1, II(b), :2, I). We further noted that C…”
- Wentworth-Douglass Hospital v. Young (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2012, 2012 DNH 057)“…le under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. RSA 350-B:1. In its motion, the hospital ar…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 350-B:3Damages.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
I. 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 can 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. II. If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under paragraph I.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2015
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- CaremarkPCS Health, LLC v. New Hampshire Department of Administrative Services (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2015, 167 N.H. 583)“…es that the complainant may be entitled to recover damages. RSA 350-B:3, I. If the misappropriation is “willful…”
- Eckel Indus, v. Primary Bank (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1998)“…ally ruled on the meaning of "willful and malicious" under RSA 350-B:3, 4, they have decided similar terms in…”
- Carriage Hill v. Hayden (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1998)“…dence of damages caused by the alleged misappropriation. RSA section 350-B:3, I, provides in pertinent part:…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Punitive Damages in New Hampshire: Statute-Only Rule (2026)
§ 350-B:4Attorneys' Fees.In force
The court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party when: I. A claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith; II. A motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith; or III. Willful and malicious misappropriation exists.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Vention Medical Advanced Components, Inc. d/b/a Advanced Polymers, a Vention Medical Company v. Nikolaos D. Pappas & a. (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2018, 188 A.3d 261)“…s that it is entitled to attorney’s fees either pursuant to RSA 350-B:4, III because the defendants willfully a…”
- Halifax-Am. Energy Co. v. Provider Power, LLC (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2018, 170 N.H. 569)“…ject [of trade secrets] among states enacting it”). RSA 350-B:4, III provides, “The court may award rea…”
- ANSYS v. Computational (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2011, 2011 DNH 025)“…a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith.” RSA 350-B:4 I (emphasis supplied). Althoug…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 350-B:6Statute of Limitations.In force
An action for misappropriation shall be brought within 3 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 gc.nh.gov
§ 350-B:9Short Title.In force
This chapter 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 gc.nh.gov
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: Colorado Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Connecticut Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Delaware 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: Florida Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Georgia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Hawaii Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Sources and References
- New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 350-B:1 to 350-B:9(gc.nh.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)
- Trade-secret statutory requirements(gc.nh.gov).gov