
 
 
January 27, 2023
An Introduction to Trade Secrets Law in the United States
Trade secrets—a form of intellectual property comprising 
legally circumvent by reverse-engineering or independently 
many kinds of confidential information—are widely 
discovering the invention. On the other hand, patents 
considered to be important assets for U.S. companies and 
require public disclosure of the invention and expire after a 
the U.S. economy as a whole, with examples as varied as 
certain time—typically, about 20 years—whereas trade 
search engine algorithms and soft drink formulas. Congress 
secrets may be maintained indefinitely. 
and the states have enacted laws to protect trade secrets, 
and federal and state courts see a steady stream of trade 
Trade secrets may also encompass certain financial or 
secrets cases, with more than a thousand filed annually in 
business information that is not patentable, such as supplier 
U.S. district courts in recent years.  
lists. The relatively broad scope of potential trade secret (as 
compared with patent) protection may have taken on greater 
Although historically protected mostly by state law, trade 
importance in light of a line of Supreme Court decisions 
secrets have more recently come under the protection of 
that further restricted the types of inventions that may be 
federal civil and criminal laws. Members proposed several 
patented, including in the software and biotechnology 
bills concerning trade secrets in the 117th Congress, largely 
fields. See CRS Report R45918, Patent-Eligible Subject 
in an effort to address the potential risk of trade secret theft 
Matter Reform: Background and Issues for Congress.  
by foreign governments and agents. This In Focus provides 
an overview of how trade secrets are defined and protected 
What Laws Protect Trade Secrets? 
under U.S. law and discusses selected legislation introduced 
Trade secrets are protected by a combination of state and 
in the 117th Congress. 
federal laws, which prescribe a combination of civil and 
criminal penalties for trade secret “misappropriation”—the 
What Are Trade Secrets? 
improper acquisition, disclosure, or use of a trade secret.  
Legal Definition 
State Laws 
State and federal laws generally provide that trade secrets 
State laws generally allow trade secret owners to sue and 
may encompass many types of information, including 
obtain damages or injunctive relief for trade secret 
formulas, patterns, compilations, programs, devices, 
misappropriation. In most states, the District of Columbia, 
methods, techniques, and processes. To constitute a trade 
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, these civil suits 
secret, such information must meet two criteria:  
are governed by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), a 
statute first published in 1979 and then enacted, with some 
  First, the information must derive economic value from 
variation, on a state-by-state basis. The only states that have 
not being known or “readily ascertainable” by other 
not yet adopted UTSA are North Carolina, which has 
persons. In other words, a trade secret derives its 
enacted a similar statute, and New York, where trade secret 
value—for instance, giving its owner a competitive 
misappropriation claims are governed by common law.   
advantage—from the fact that others cannot easily 
discover it.  
Although state courts generally have jurisdiction over 
UTSA claims, plaintiffs may file certain UTSA lawsuits in 
  Second, the owner must keep the information secret 
U.S. district courts. As with many other kinds of civil suits, 
using measures that are reasonable under the 
plaintiffs may file standalone UTSA claims in federal court 
circumstances. Such protective measures may involve, 
if the requirements for “diversity jurisdiction” are met—i.e., 
for example, restricting access to the information to 
the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states, 
specific individuals on a “need-to-know” basis, 
and the lawsuit seeks more than $75,000 in damages. A 
including limiting physical access to company facilities 
defendant also has the right to “remove” (i.e., transfer) such 
and files; requiring employees to sign nondisclosure 
a lawsuit from state to federal court if the diversity 
agreements; and securing computer networks. 
jurisdiction requirements are met and the defendant is not a 
citizen of the forum state. 
Differences Between Trade Secrets and Patents 
Trade secrets may include, but are not limited to, the types 
Defend Trade Secrets Acts 
of inventive discoveries that are eligible for U.S. patent 
In 2016, Congress passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act 
protection. For example, the inventor of a new type of 
(DTSA) to create a new civil right of action for trade secret 
manufacturing equipment—or a new way to use such 
misappropriation under federal law. DTSA does not replace 
equipment—might have a choice either to apply for a patent 
state laws such as UTSA, but rather creates a parallel right 
on the invention or to maintain it as a trade secret. One 
for plaintiffs to file trade secret misappropriation lawsuits in 
advantage of patent protection is that, unlike trade secrets, a 
federal court if “the trade secret is related to a product or 
patent gives its owner a monopoly that competitors cannot 
service used in ... interstate or foreign commerce.” 
https://crsreports.congress.gov 
An Introduction to Trade Secrets Law in the United States 
Supporters contend that DTSA has improved protection for 
consists of stealing a trade secret to “injure any owner of 
trade secret owners by providing easier access to federal 
that trade secret” and may be punished by fines and prison 
courts and authorizing expedited seizure of property to 
sentences of up to 10 years. 
retrieve stolen trade secrets in some circumstances.  
The involvement of foreign governments or agents is a 
Some critics argue that DTSA is largely duplicative of 
factor that the Department of Justice (DOJ) considers in 
UTSA and that it has failed to achieve national uniformity 
deciding whether to file charges under EEA. For example, 
in trade secrets law. For example, federal courts have 
in January 2023 an ex-General Electric employee was 
disagreed on whether DTSA authorizes them to restrain 
sentenced to two years in prison for conspiring to steal the 
employees from taking new positions that would allegedly 
company’s trade secrets regarding gas and steam turbines to 
result in the “inevitable disclosure” of their former 
benefit the People’s Republic of China. DOJ has focused 
employers’ trade secrets, reflecting a split in various states’ 
largely on addressing intellectual property theft and 
laws. This issue may have new salience given the January 
espionage by China’s government and associated actors, 
2023 notice of proposed rulemaking by the Federal Trade 
although it has cautioned that this focus should not give the 
Commission (FTC) that would ban most non-compete 
impression of intolerance or bias against Chinese people or 
agreements. See CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10905, The FTC’s 
chill legitimate academic and research collaborations. 
Proposed Non-Compete Rule. 
Considerations for Congress 
One potential difference between DTSA and UTSA is their 
The 117th Congress considered several bills concerning 
extraterritorial reach (i.e., applicability to conduct outside 
trade secrets, including the two noted above (H.R. 4327 and 
the United States). A leading district court opinion held 
S. 2067). Such bills largely addressed the perceived threat 
that, under DTSA, plaintiffs could recover damages for 
of misappropriation by non-U.S. persons. One such bill, the 
foreign acts of misappropriation so long as “an act in 
Combating Chinese Purloining (CCP) of Trade Secrets Act 
furtherance” of the misappropriation—such as marketing 
(S. 1245), stated that “China has expansive efforts in place 
knock-off products at a trade show—took place in the 
to acquire United States technology, including sensitive 
United States. See Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera 
trade secrets and proprietary information.” 
Communications Corp., 436 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (N.D. Ill. 
2020). By contrast, the court held that Illinois’s UTSA did 
A number of bills introduced in the 117th Congress would 
not reach such extraterritorial conduct. See id. A bill 
have authorized penalties, including immigration 
introduced in the 117th Congress, the Protect American 
restrictions, against non-U.S. persons who steal trade 
Trade Secrets Act of 2021 (H.R. 4327), could have further 
secrets. The CCP Act and the Stop Theft of Intellectual 
expanded DTSA’s extraterritorial scope by codifying that 
Property Act of 2021 (S. 1409) would have rendered aliens 
DTSA “shall apply to conduct occurring outside the United 
who violate EEA and certain other laws inadmissible and 
States and impacting United States commerce.” 
deportable under U.S. immigration law. Similarly, the 
Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022 (S. 
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
1294) would have denied or revoked U.S. entries and visas 
In addition to state and federal courts, trade secret owners 
to individuals the President found to have knowingly 
may file certain misappropriation claims at the U.S. 
engaged in, benefited from, or provided support to trade 
International Trade Commission (ITC) under Section 337 
secret theft posing “a significant threat to the national 
of the Tariff Act of 1930. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The ITC 
security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial 
may issue injunctions to stop the importation of products 
stability of the United States.” That bill and the CCP Act 
that harm U.S. industry and are made using misappropriated 
also would have authorized several additional sanctions 
trade secrets. The ITC may order such relief even if the acts 
against foreign entities that misappropriate trade secrets, 
of misappropriation take place outside the United States. 
including trade restrictions, ineligibility for Export-Import 
See CRS In Focus IF12295, An Introduction to Section 337 
Bank and other financial assistance, and exclusion of 
Intellectual Property Litigation at the U.S. International 
certain corporate officers from the United States.  
Trade Commission; CRS Report RL34292, Intellectual 
Property Rights and International Trade. A bill introduced 
Some bills from the 117th Congress also sought further fact-
in the 117th Congress, the SECRETS Act of 2021 (S. 2067), 
finding on trade secret misappropriation by other countries. 
would have created a separate procedure allowing the ITC 
The Countering Chinese Espionage Reporting Act (H.R. 
to investigate and bar the importation of articles produced 
7325) would have required the Attorney General to submit 
using trade secrets misappropriated “by a foreign agent or 
annual reports on efforts to counter “Chinese national 
foreign instrumentality” on national security grounds. 
security threats and espionage in the United States, 
including trade secret theft.” Similarly, the CCP Act would 
Economic Espionage Act 
have required the Attorney General to submit an annual 
The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA) made it a 
report on trade secret misappropriation by foreign countries. 
federal crime to misappropriate trade secrets for either 
foreign espionage or commercial purposes. Under this law, 
Looking ahead, Congress may also consider whether DTSA 
the crime of economic espionage consists of stealing a trade 
should be amended based on the federal courts’ early years 
secret to “benefit any foreign government, foreign 
of experience deciding cases brought under this statute. 
instrumentality, or foreign agent” and may be punished by 
fines on both individuals and organizations and prison 
Christopher T. Zirpoli, Legislative Attorney   
sentences of up to 15 years. The crime of commercial theft 
IF12315
https://crsreports.congress.gov 
An Introduction to Trade Secrets Law in the United States 
 
 
Disclaimer 
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to 
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. 
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has 
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the 
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be 
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include 
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you 
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. 
 
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12315 · VERSION 1 · NEW