As used in this article, 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.
(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; or
(b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a
person who:
(I) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
(II) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that such person's
knowledge of the trade secret was:
(A) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
(B) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its
use; or
(C) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to
maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(III) Before a material change of such person's 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.
(3) Repealed.
(4) "Trade secret" means the whole or any portion or phase of any scientific or technical
information, design, process, procedure, formula, improvement, confidential business or
financial information, listing of names, addresses, or telephone numbers, or other information
relating to any business or profession which is secret and of value. To be a "trade secret" the
owner thereof must have taken measures to prevent the secret from becoming available to
persons other than those selected by the owner to have access thereto for limited purposes.
Source: L. 86: Entire article added, p. 460, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2003: (3)(b) added
by revision, pp. 2356, 2357, §§ 347, 348. L. 2004: IP(2)(b)(II) and (2)(b)(III) amended, p. 1459,
§ 180, effective July 1.
Editor's note: Subsection (3)(b) provided for the repeal of subsection (3), effective July
1, 2004. (See L. 2003, pp. 2356, 2357.)
Cross references: For additional definitions applicable to this article, see § 7-90-102.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
54
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case:
Gognat v. Ellsworth, 259 P.3d 497 (Colo. 2011).
Gognat v. Ellsworth, 259 P.3d 497 (Colo. 2011).
· cites it 6× “The Act expressly defines both "misappropriation" and "trade secret" and provides a specific statute of limitations for actions alleging the misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Saturn Sys., Inc. v. Militare, 252 P.3d 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 7× “at § 7-74-102(1), C.R.98.2010. As a prior division of this court observed, "[tlhere is no requirement in Colorado's [UTSA] that there be actual use or commercial implementation of the misappropriated trade secret for damages to acerue.”
Re/Max, LLC v. Quicken Loans Inc., 295 F. Supp. 3d 1163 (D. Colo. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102 (4). Quicken Loans brings counterclaims for trade secret misappropriation against both RE/MAX and Motto.”
Hertz v. Luzenac Grp., 576 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 4× “2001) (citing Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 7-74-102(2)(a), (b)).”
Colorado Supply Co., Inc. v. Stewart, 797 P.2d 1303 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 8× “Even independent contractors, who were hired as salespersons, were provided the information. Finally, the trial court determined that there was no misappropriation because there was no improper acquisition of the information and because the sales representative agreements…”
L-3 Commc'ns Corp. v. Jaxon Eng'g & Maint., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (D. Colo. 2015).
· cites it 6× “§ 7-74-102(2) — that is, acquired or disclosed the secret with actual or constructive knowledge that the acquisition or disclosure 'was by improper means.”
Atmel Corp. v. Vitesee Semiconductor Corp., 30 P.3d 789 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 5× “In Colorado, a trade secret is "the whole or any portion or phase of any scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula, improvement, confidential business or financial information, listing of names, addresses, or telephone numbers, or other information…”
GOGNAT v. Ellsworth, 224 P.3d 1039 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “§ 7-74-102(2)(b). There is no hint in the statute that the accrual of the limitations period is different depending on the nature of the misappropriation.”
Walshe v. Zabors, 178 F. Supp. 3d 1071 (D. Colo. 2016).
· cites it 13× “” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102 (1). . “The interpretation of the statutory definition, and therefore the scope, of a ‘trade secret,’ .”
Ovation Plumbing, Inc. v. Furton, 33 P.3d 1221 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Section 7-74-102(4), C.R.8.2000. What constitutes a trade secret is a question of fact.”
Doubleclick Inc. v. Paikin, 402 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (D. Colo. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 7-74-102(4) (2005). In addition, the Colorado Court of Appeals has also listed the following factors to be considered: “(1) the extent to which the information is known outside the business, (2) the extent to which it is known to those inside the business, i.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102(1) — 3 cases
L-3 Commc'ns Corp. v. Jaxon Eng'g & Maint., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (D. Colo. 2015).
“§ 7-74-102(2) — that is, acquired or disclosed the secret with actual or constructive knowledge that the acquisition or disclosure 'was by improper means.”
Saturn Sys., Inc. v. Militare, 252 P.3d 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“at § 7-74-102(1), C.R.98.2010. As a prior division of this court observed, "[tlhere is no requirement in Colorado's [UTSA] that there be actual use or commercial implementation of the misappropriated trade secret for damages to acerue.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102(2) — 4 cases
Gognat v. Ellsworth, 259 P.3d 497 (Colo. 2011).
“The Act expressly defines both "misappropriation" and "trade secret" and provides a specific statute of limitations for actions alleging the misappropriation of trade secrets.”
L-3 Commc'ns Corp. v. Jaxon Eng'g & Maint., Inc., 125 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (D. Colo. 2015).
“§ 7-74-102(2) — that is, acquired or disclosed the secret with actual or constructive knowledge that the acquisition or disclosure 'was by improper means.”
Saturn Sys., Inc. v. Militare, 252 P.3d 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“at § 7-74-102(1), C.R.98.2010. As a prior division of this court observed, "[tlhere is no requirement in Colorado's [UTSA] that there be actual use or commercial implementation of the misappropriated trade secret for damages to acerue.”
Walshe v. Zabors, 178 F. Supp. 3d 1071 (D. Colo. 2016).
“” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102 (1). . “The interpretation of the statutory definition, and therefore the scope, of a ‘trade secret,’ .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102(2)(a) — 5 cases
Saturn Sys., Inc. v. Militare, 252 P.3d 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“at § 7-74-102(1), C.R.98.2010. As a prior division of this court observed, "[tlhere is no requirement in Colorado's [UTSA] that there be actual use or commercial implementation of the misappropriated trade secret for damages to acerue.”
Hertz v. Luzenac Grp., 576 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2009).
“2001) (citing Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 7-74-102(2)(a), (b)).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102(2)(b) — 1 case
GOGNAT v. Ellsworth, 224 P.3d 1039 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“§ 7-74-102(2)(b). There is no hint in the statute that the accrual of the limitations period is different depending on the nature of the misappropriation.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102(2)(b)(II) — 1 case
GOGNAT v. Ellsworth, 224 P.3d 1039 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“§ 7-74-102(2)(b). There is no hint in the statute that the accrual of the limitations period is different depending on the nature of the misappropriation.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102(4) — 27 cases
Gognat v. Ellsworth, 259 P.3d 497 (Colo. 2011).
“The Act expressly defines both "misappropriation" and "trade secret" and provides a specific statute of limitations for actions alleging the misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Atmel Corp. v. Vitesee Semiconductor Corp., 30 P.3d 789 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
“In Colorado, a trade secret is "the whole or any portion or phase of any scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula, improvement, confidential business or financial information, listing of names, addresses, or telephone numbers, or other information…”
Hertz v. Luzenac Grp., 576 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2009).
“2001) (citing Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 7-74-102(2)(a), (b)).”
Colorado Supply Co., Inc. v. Stewart, 797 P.2d 1303 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
“Even independent contractors, who were hired as salespersons, were provided the information. Finally, the trial court determined that there was no misappropriation because there was no improper acquisition of the information and because the sales representative agreements…”
Saturn Sys., Inc. v. Militare, 252 P.3d 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“at § 7-74-102(1), C.R.98.2010. As a prior division of this court observed, "[tlhere is no requirement in Colorado's [UTSA] that there be actual use or commercial implementation of the misappropriated trade secret for damages to acerue.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102(b)(1) — 1 case
Walshe v. Zabors, 178 F. Supp. 3d 1071 (D. Colo. 2016).
“” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-74-102 (1). . “The interpretation of the statutory definition, and therefore the scope, of a ‘trade secret,’ .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.