Trade secrets are among the most valuable assets a business can hold—and among the most vulnerable. Unlike patents, trademarks, and copyrights, trade secret protection does not require registration or public disclosure. It depends entirely on the steps a business takes to maintain confidentiality. When those steps fail—through employee theft, corporate espionage, or wrongful disclosure—the consequences can be severe. A trade secrets attorney can help you protect your confidential business information and pursue legal remedies when it is misappropriated.
Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq., and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) adopted by 47 states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, a trade secret is information—including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process—that:
This definition is intentionally broad. Trade secrets can include software source code, customer lists, pricing formulas, manufacturing processes, business plans, marketing strategies, financial projections, vendor relationships, and any other confidential information that gives its holder a competitive advantage.
Misappropriation is the wrongful acquisition, disclosure, or use of a trade secret. Under the DTSA and UTSA, misappropriation includes:
The most common trade secret misappropriation scenarios involve departing employees. An employee who takes confidential customer lists, product formulas, or proprietary software code to a new employer has likely committed misappropriation. So has a business partner who uses confidential financial projections shared during due diligence to structure a competing deal.
The DTSA, enacted in 2016, created a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. Before the DTSA, trade secret owners had to rely on state law claims, which varied significantly in remedies and procedural requirements. The DTSA provides nationwide jurisdiction for trade secret claims in federal court, access to powerful federal remedies, and the ability to pursue cases in a single federal proceeding even when the misappropriation occurred across multiple states.
Key DTSA remedies include injunctive relief to prevent ongoing or threatened misappropriation, actual damages including unjust enrichment, and in cases of willful and malicious misappropriation, exemplary damages up to twice the actual damages and attorney’s fees. The DTSA also provides for ex parte seizure orders in extraordinary circumstances—allowing a court to order immediate seizure of misappropriated trade secrets before the defendant can be notified, a powerful tool in cases involving imminent destruction or flight with stolen IP.
Trade secret protection is forfeited if the owner does not take reasonable steps to maintain secrecy. What constitutes “reasonable” measures is a fact-specific analysis, but courts look for evidence of:
A business that shares its formula with every employee, contractor, and visitor without any confidentiality protections will have difficulty establishing that the formula was a trade secret when misappropriation occurs. Building the right protection infrastructure before misappropriation happens is essential.
Call immediately if you suspect misappropriation has occurred. Evidence preservation is critical—digital forensics on employee devices, email server logs, access records, and file transfer histories can establish what was taken, by whom, and when. This evidence is often ephemeral and must be secured quickly before it is overwritten or deleted. An attorney can guide the preservation process, direct forensic investigation, and take immediate legal action including seeking a temporary restraining order if circumstances warrant.
Revision Legal’s trade secrets attorneys have both prosecuted and defended trade secret claims under the DTSA and UTSA in federal and state courts. We understand the technical complexity these cases often involve and have the experience to pursue aggressive, effective legal strategies on behalf of our clients. Contact us today for a confidential consultation.
Michigan employers and businesses have two parallel frameworks available for trade secret protection: the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. § 1836, and the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA), Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.1901–445.1910. The MUTSA was enacted in 1998 and largely tracks the uniform act, defining trade secrets as information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable and that is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. MUTSA preempts conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other state law claims for misappropriation — meaning that plaintiffs cannot plead common-law conversion or unjust enrichment claims that are simply trade secret claims dressed in different language.
The DTSA added federal question jurisdiction for trade secret cases without displacing the MUTSA. Michigan businesses now routinely plead both federal and state trade secret claims in a single action, obtaining the federal court forum while preserving access to MUTSA’s remedies — including injunctive relief, actual damages, unjust enrichment, and exemplary damages of up to two times actual damages for willful and malicious misappropriation. Under both statutes, attorney’s fees are available if misappropriation was willful and malicious or if the claim or motion was made in bad faith.
Michigan courts treat non-compete agreements and trade secret claims as related but distinct legal protections. A non-compete agreement that is unreasonably broad in scope, geography, or duration may be unenforceable under Michigan’s common law reasonableness standard — unlike states such as California that void non-competes categorically. However, even where a non-compete is unenforceable, the employer may still pursue trade secret claims against a former employee who took proprietary information to a competitor.
Michigan courts have granted preliminary injunctions in trade secret cases where the plaintiff can demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm — the latter being presumed in some cases where disclosure of a trade secret would cause harm that cannot be adequately compensated by money damages. The injunction may restrict the former employee from working in a specific role or from using identified categories of information, without necessarily barring employment altogether.
For Michigan businesses, proactive trade secret protection — through a combination of NDAs, restricted access controls, employee training, and documented exit procedures — remains the most effective strategy for avoiding both the litigation itself and the risk that the trade secret will be deemed unprotected due to inadequate security measures.
Courts have allowed trade secret misappropriation damages based on estimated R&D costs. Here’s what this means for how plaintiffs calculate and prove their damages.
Read more about Trade Secret Damages: R&D Cost Estimates Allowed
Using Zoom and other teleconferencing tools for confidential business discussions creates trade secret risks. Here’s how to protect sensitive information during virtual meetings.
Read more about Teleconferencing Software Trade Secret Risks
Courts disagree on whether trade secret owners must prove actual use of stolen information to prevail on misappropriation claims. Here’s the current state of the legal debate.
Read more about Is Proof of Use Required for Trade Secret Claims?