Oregon
Oregon 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. · 1 primary source cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Oregon enacted the Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act, codified at Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.461 to 646.475, in 1987, providing businesses and individuals with a statutory remedy for trade secret misappropriation. A civil action must be brought within three years of the date the misappropriation was discovered, or reasonably should have been discovered (Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.471).
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 protection across all jurisdictions, see Trade Secret Laws by State.
Does Oregon Have a Trade Secret Law?
Oregon enacted its Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1987, codified at Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.461 to 646.475. Oregon's Act is modeled on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) developed by the Uniform Law Commission and replaced the state's prior common-law misappropriation framework with a unified statutory cause of action. The Act provides Oregon businesses with predictable definitions, a structured set of remedies, and express preemption of duplicative tort claims arising from the same misappropriation conduct. Oregon courts interpreting the Act look to UTSA commentary and to decisions from other UTSA-adopting states as persuasive authority, given the Act's directive in Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.475 to apply it to make uniform the law among adopting states. Oregon businesses also have access to the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 as a supplementary federal remedy.

What Counts as a Trade Secret and Misappropriation Under Oregon Law?
Under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.461, a trade secret is information, including a drawing, cost data, customer list, 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 the public or to 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.
Oregon courts assess whether protective measures are reasonable by examining the totality of what the owner actually did. Recognized steps include requiring employees, contractors, and vendors to sign nondisclosure agreements; limiting access to sensitive materials on a need-to-know basis; marking documents and digital files as proprietary or confidential; and implementing password protections and other access controls. A business need not pursue every possible safeguard, but must demonstrate deliberate and consistent effort to guard the information from disclosure.
Misappropriation under § 646.461 means acquiring a trade secret by improper means, which includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage. Misappropriation also means disclosing or using a trade secret without consent when the discloser acquired it through improper means, knew or had reason to know the secret was obtained through improper means, or had a specific duty to maintain secrecy and breached that duty. The statute expressly recognizes that reverse engineering and independent derivation are proper means and therefore do not constitute misappropriation.
Remedies and the Limitations Period Under Oregon Law
A civil action under the Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act must be filed within three years after the misappropriation was discovered or should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence (Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.471). The three-year period aligns with the UTSA baseline and the federal DTSA's limitations period under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(d). Oregon applies a discovery rule, so the limitations period begins when the owner knew or had reason to know misappropriation occurred, not necessarily when the underlying act took place.

Available remedies under the Oregon Act include:
- Injunctive relief (§ 646.463): A court may enjoin actual or threatened misappropriation and may extend an injunction to eliminate any commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation. Where an injunction would be inequitable, the court may permit continued use subject to payment of a reasonable royalty.
- Damages (§ 646.465): Damages may include actual loss plus unjust enrichment not counted in actual loss, but cannot be less than a reasonable royalty for unauthorized disclosure or use. A material and prejudicial change of position before the defendant knew or had reason to know of the misappropriation can make monetary recovery inequitable.
- Exemplary damages (§ 646.465): When the misappropriation is willful or malicious, the court may award additional punitive damages up to twice the award under § 646.465(1)-(2), allowing a total up to three times that award.
- Attorney fees (§ 646.467): Available to the prevailing party when a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, when a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or when willful or malicious misappropriation is found.
Under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.473, the Act displaces conflicting civil claims for misappropriation of a trade secret, directing those disputes to the statutory framework. Contract claims, criminal liability, and civil remedies not based on misappropriation are not affected.
How the Federal DTSA Applies in Oregon
The Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1836-1839, enacted in May 2016, creates a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation when the secret relates to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce. The DTSA does not preempt the Oregon Act (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so Oregon trade-secret owners may plead both statutes simultaneously, commonly in federal district court.
Key DTSA provisions applicable in Oregon:
- Limitations: three years from discovery (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), identical to the state period under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.471.
- 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 for bad-faith claims or willful and malicious conduct (§ 1836(b)(3)).
- Ex parte seizure: in extraordinary circumstances a federal court may authorize seizure of property to prevent 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 include written notice of this immunity; omitting it forfeits the right to exemplary DTSA damages and attorney fees in any action tied to that agreement (§ 1833(b)(3)).
Criminal trade-secret theft in Oregon may also be prosecuted under the federal Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1832.
This article presents general legal information about Oregon trade secret law as of 2026-06-25 and is not legal advice. Trade secret matters involve detailed factual and legal analysis that varies by situation; consult a licensed Oregon attorney for guidance specific to your circumstances.
Related articles
- Trade Secret Laws by State
- Oklahoma Trade Secret Laws
- Pennsylvania Trade Secret Laws
- Is AI-generated code copyright infringement?
Last updated: 2026-06-25.
Frequently Asked Questions
What qualifies as a trade secret under Oregon law?
Under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.461, information qualifies as a trade secret if it derives independent economic value from not being generally known to the public or to others who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and if the owner takes efforts reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. Protected information may include drawings, cost data, customer lists, formulas, patterns, compilations, programs, devices, methods, techniques, and processes.
How long do I have to file a trade secret lawsuit in Oregon?
Under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.471, you have three years from the date you discovered or reasonably should have discovered the misappropriation. The same three-year period applies under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), so both clocks run concurrently if you plead both statutes.
What remedies are available for trade secret misappropriation in Oregon?
Oregon remedies include injunctions; actual loss plus nonduplicative unjust enrichment, subject to a reasonable-royalty minimum and the statutory equitable exception; and additional punitive damages up to twice that award for willful or malicious misappropriation. The court may award 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 or malicious misappropriation (Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.463-646.467).
Do nondisclosure agreements help protect trade secrets in Oregon?
Yes. Oregon courts consider whether the owner took reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy, and a well-drafted NDA is strong 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 DTSA damages and attorney fees in a federal action tied to that agreement.
Can Oregon businesses bring both an Oregon state claim and a federal DTSA claim?
Yes. The DTSA does not preempt the Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1838), so Oregon trade-secret owners may assert both claims simultaneously, typically in federal district court when the misappropriation involves interstate or foreign commerce. Both carry a three-year limitations period from discovery, and the remedial frameworks are substantially parallel.
Updates
Corrected Oregon’s definition and state damages and fee rules.
Fixed a three-way citation mix-up in Oregon's trade secret statute: the limitations period is ORS 646.471 (the page said .475), the preemption clause is ORS 646.473 (the page said .471), and the uniformity clause is ORS 646.475 (the page said .473).
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.
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 646: Trade Practices and Antitrust Regulation
§ 646.463Enjoining misappropriation; payment of royalties; affirmative actsIn force
(1) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be temporarily, preliminarily or permanently enjoined. Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be vacated 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. (2) In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for 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 the misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable. (3) In appropriate circumstances, the court may order affirmative acts to protect a trade secret.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
§ 646.461Definitions for ORS 646.461 to 646.475In force
As used in ORS 646.461 to 646.475, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) “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. Reverse engineering and independent development alone shall not be considered improper means. (2) “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; (b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; (c) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who, before a material change of 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; or (d) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person, who at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that the knowledge of the trade secret was: (A) Derived from or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 29 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kaib's Roving R. Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Smith (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2010, 237 Or. App. 96)“…smissing this action for misappropriation of trade secrets, ORS 646.461 to 646.475, breach of contract, breach…”
- State Ex Rel. Sports Management News, Inc. v. Nachtigal (Oregon Supreme Court 1996, 324 Or. 80)“…y Circuit Court under the Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act, ORS 646.461 to 646.475 (the Act). The complaint all…”
- Peterson Machinery Co. v. May (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2021, 313 Or. App. 454)“…to plaintiff’s claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, ORS 646.461 to 646.475. On appeal, plaintiff assign…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 646.465Damages for misappropriationIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) A complainant is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for misappropriation, unless a material and prejudicial change of position by a defendant prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of the misappropriation renders a monetary recovery inequitable. (2) Damages may 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, but shall not be less than a reasonable royalty for the unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret. (3) Upon a finding of willful or malicious misappropriation, punitive damages may be awarded in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsections (1) and (2) of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State Ex Rel. Sports Management News, Inc. v. Nachtigal (Oregon Supreme Court 1996, 324 Or. 80)“…ion under the Act. The remedies are damages, provided under ORS 646.465, and injunction, provided under ORS 646…”
- Peterson Machinery Co. v. May (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2021, 313 Or. App. 454)“…sappropriation,” and also pro- vides for injunctive relief. ORS 646.465; ORS 646.463. As relevant here, “misapp…”
- Great American Insurance v. Linderman (District Court, D. Oregon 2015, 116 F. Supp. 3d 1183)“…ican’s sixth claim is titled “Unjust Enrichment Pursuant to ORS § 646.465. PL’s 1st Am. Compl. [5] at ¶¶ 9.1-9.6.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Punitive Damages Laws: State Share, Proof and Pleading (2026)
§ 646.467Attorney feesIn force
The court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party if: (1) A claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith; (2) A motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith; or (3) Willful or malicious misappropriation is found by the court or jury. [1987 c.537 §5] 646.469 Preservation of trade secret by court; methods. In any action brought under ORS 646.461 to 646.475, the court shall preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means, which may include granting protective orders in connection with discovery proceedings, holding in camera hearings, sealing the records of the action or ordering any person involved in the litigation not to disclose an alleged trade secret without prior court approval.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Pelican Bay Forest Prods., Inc. v. W. Timber Prods., Inc. (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2019, 297 Or. App. 417)“…ees to defendants on the trade secrets claim, as allowed by ORS 646.467(1), concluding that Pelican Bay's claim…”
- Keith Manufacturing, Co. v. Butterfield (District Court, D. Oregon 2017, 256 F. Supp. 3d 1123)“…suant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), Or. Rev. Stat. § 20.096 , Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.467 , and 35 U.S.C. § 285 . Rule 54(d)(2)…”
- Rust-Oleum Corporation v. NIC Industries, Inc. (District Court, D. Oregon 2025)“…o their attorneys’ fees under the Oregon Trade Secrets Act, ORS § 646.467. Under ORS § 646.467, a court “may awa…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 646.471Limitation on commencement of actionIn force
An action for misappropriation must be brought within three 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 oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2004
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Towne v. Robbins (District Court, D. Oregon 2004, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1269)“…hin two years “from the discovery of the fraud or deceit”); ORS 646.471 (providing that trade-secrets claim mus…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 646.473Conflicting tort, restitution or other law providing civil remedies; exclusions for certain other remedies; limited immunity for public bodies and officers, employees and agentsIn force
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, ORS 646.461 to 646.475 supersede conflicting tort, restitution or other law of Oregon providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret. (2) ORS 646.461 to 646.475 shall not affect: (a) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; (b) Other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; (c) Criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or (d) Any defense, immunity or limitation of liability afforded public bodies, their officers, employees or agents under ORS 30.260 to 30.300. (3) Notwithstanding any other provision in ORS 646.461 to 646.475, public bodies and their officers, employees and agents are immune from any claim or action for misappropriation of a trade secret that is based on the disclosure or release of information in obedience to or in good faith reliance on any order of disclosure issued pursuant to ORS 192.311 to 192.431 or on the advice of an attorney authorized to advise the public body, its officers, employees or agents.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kaib's Roving R. Ph. Agency, Inc. v. Smith (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2010, 237 Or. App. 96)“…od of consumer confusion, nor * * * offer such evidence.”); ORS 646.473(1) (The Uniform Trade Secrets Act “supe…”
- Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Stolfi (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2025)“…7 § 8(3) (Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act, now codified at Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.473(3)); 1973 Or. Laws Ch. 794 § 11 (Oregon…”
- Commercial Fire Protection, LLC v. Pigg (District Court, D. Oregon 2025)“…Alt. Legal Sols., Inc., 2009 WL 10733692, at *13 (quoting Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.473(1)). "However, th[e] preemption provis…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 646.475Application and construction of ORS 646.461 to 646.475; short title; effect of invalidityIn force
(1) ORS 646.461 to 646.475 shall be applied and construed to effectuate their general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of ORS 646.461 to 646.475 among states enacting them. (2) ORS 646.461 to 646.475 may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. (3) If any provision of ORS 646.461 to 646.475 or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of ORS 646.461 to 646.475 which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of ORS 646.461 to 646.475 are severable.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State ex rel Rosenblum v. Living Essentials, LLC (Oregon Supreme Court 2023, 371 Or. 23)“…to maintain a uniform interpretation, it can say so. E.g., ORS 646.475(1) (stating that the Uniform Trade Secr…”
- State Ex Rel. Sports Management News, Inc. v. Nachtigal (Oregon Supreme Court 1996, 324 Or. 80)“…RS 646.469 does not render the rest of ORS 646.469 invalid. ORS 646.475(3) provides that the various provisions…”
- Pelican Bay Forest Prods., Inc. v. W. Timber Prods., Inc. (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2019, 297 Or. App. 417)“…he Uniform Trade Secrets Act, ORS 646.461 to 646.475. See ORS 646.475(2) (" ORS 646.461 to 646.475 may be cit…”
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: Trade Secret Laws by State: UTSA & DTSA (2026), Alabama 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, Arkansas Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, California Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
§ 1831Economic espionageIn forcecited in 27 of our articles
Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly— steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret; without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret; receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3); or conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of 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 not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 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 249 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 2016, 844 F.3d 1024)“…ade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq. When Nosal left Korn/Ferry,…”
- United States v. Aleynikov (Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2012, 676 F.3d 71)“…EEA contains two operative provisions. The first section ( 18 U.S.C. § 1831 (a)), which is not charged in the indic…”
- United States v. Chung (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2011, 659 F.3d 815)“…of violating the Economic Espi- onage Act of 1996 (“EEA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831(a)(1), (3); on one count of conspiring…”
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
§ 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: District of Columbia Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Hawaii Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines, Iowa Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Sources and References
- Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.461 to 646.475(oregonlegislature.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)