North Dakota Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines

North Dakota adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act as the North Dakota Uniform Trade Secrets Act, N.D. Cent. Code §§ 47-25.1-01 to 47-25.1-08, enacted in 1982. The statute follows the Uniform Law Commission's model act and sets a three-year limitations period from discovery of misappropriation under § 47-25.1-07. Both injunctive and monetary remedies are available, including up to twice the compensatory damages for willful and malicious 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 a nationwide overview, see Trade Secret Laws by State.

Does North Dakota have a trade secret law?

North Dakota enacted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1982, codified at N.D. Cent. Code §§ 47-25.1-01 to 47-25.1-08 (ndlegis.gov). The statute adopts the Uniform Law Commission's model act and provides a comprehensive framework for civil trade-secret protection in North Dakota. Courts in North Dakota may consult UTSA commentary and decisions from other UTSA-adopting states when interpreting the North Dakota statute. Section 47-25.1-08 preempts conflicting civil tort and restitution claims based on trade-secret misappropriation, leaving the statute as the primary state civil avenue for these disputes. Criminal trade-secret theft may be separately pursued under the federal Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832.

What counts as a trade secret and misappropriation in North Dakota?

Section 47-25.1-01(4) of the North Dakota Century Code 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 met. Common types of qualifying information include customer and vendor lists, pricing formulas, software source code, manufacturing processes, and proprietary business strategies, provided the owner has treated the information as confidential in actual practice.

Section 47-25.1-01(2) defines misappropriation as acquiring a trade secret by improper means, such as theft, bribery, misrepresentation, or breach of a duty of confidentiality, or using or disclosing a trade secret without consent when the person knew or had reason to know the secret was improperly obtained. Section 47-25.1-01(1) expressly provides that reverse engineering of a lawfully obtained product and independent development are proper means and therefore not misappropriation. A competitor who arrives at the same information through legitimate work has not violated North Dakota law.

Remedies and the limitations period in North Dakota

Section 47-25.1-02 authorizes courts to grant injunctions to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation. In exceptional circumstances, when a prohibition would cause undue hardship because the defendant has already incorporated the information into an ongoing product or process, the court may instead impose a reasonable royalty obligation for a defined period.

Section 47-25.1-03 governs monetary relief. A plaintiff may recover: (a) actual loss caused by the misappropriation plus any unjust enrichment received by the defendant that is not captured in the actual-loss figure, or (b) a reasonable royalty for the period during which misappropriation occurred when neither actual loss nor unjust enrichment is measurable. When misappropriation is willful and malicious, the court may additionally award exemplary damages not exceeding twice the compensatory award.

Section 47-25.1-04 permits a court to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party when a claim or motion is made or asserted in bad faith, or when willful and malicious misappropriation is established.

The limitations period under § 47-25.1-07 is three years from the date misappropriation was discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. Continuing misappropriation is treated as a single claim accruing from the first act the owner discovered or should have discovered. Prompt investigation after suspecting theft helps preserve the claim before the three-year window closes.

How the federal DTSA applies in North Dakota

The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, has provided a federal civil remedy for trade-secret misappropriation since May 11, 2016. The DTSA requires the trade secret to relate to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce, a condition that most North Dakota business trade secrets satisfy. Because the DTSA expressly does not preempt state law (18 U.S.C. § 1838), North Dakota claimants may plead both the state Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the DTSA in a single lawsuit.

Two DTSA-specific features supplement North Dakota state remedies. First, a federal court may issue a civil ex parte seizure order in extraordinary circumstances to prevent the dissemination of a misappropriated secret before the defendant receives notice (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)). Second, the DTSA's three-year limitations period from discovery (§ 1836(d)) matches North Dakota's three-year period under § 47-25.1-07.

Employers must also address the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3). Any confidentiality or employment agreement signed or updated after May 11, 2016 must inform the employee that disclosing a trade secret to a government official or attorney solely to report a suspected legal violation carries no civil or criminal liability under federal or state trade-secret law. An employer who omits this notice from a covered agreement forfeits DTSA exemplary damages and attorney fees against that individual, even when the misappropriation was deliberate.

Protecting trade secrets in North Dakota: practical steps

Because § 47-25.1-01(4) requires reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy as a definitional element of trade-secret status, documented protective practices are both a legal necessity and a practical priority. Courts assess whether the measures taken were proportionate to the commercial value of the information and the risk of disclosure. Common protective steps include:

• Written nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements with employees, contractors, and business partners, updated after May 11, 2016 to include the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice
• Role-based digital access controls and encryption for systems and files containing sensitive information
• Physical security measures for facilities and paper records holding proprietary data
• Consistent and visible marking of documents and materials as confidential or proprietary
• Structured employee offboarding procedures covering device return, credential revocation, and written reminders of post-employment confidentiality obligations

North Dakota's energy, agriculture, and manufacturing sectors frequently depend on trade-secret protection for extraction techniques, input formulas, and supply-chain strategies. Consistent documentation of security practices strengthens the reasonable-efforts element if a claim is ever litigated.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It describes North Dakota trade-secret law under N.D. Cent. Code §§ 47-25.1-01 to 47-25.1-08 and the federal DTSA as of 2026-06-25 and does not address your specific facts. Trade-secret disputes are fact-intensive and deadlines are strict. Consult an attorney licensed in North Dakota before acting.

Related articles

• Trade Secret Laws by State
• Minnesota Trade Secret Laws
• South Dakota Trade Secret Laws
• Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?

Last updated: 2026-06-25.