Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 35 — · Chapter 625 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-50 (2026)

Citation of chapter

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

(P.A. 83-344, S. 1.)

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Elm City Cheese Co. v. Federico, 752 A.2d 1037 (Conn. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Elm City Cheese Co. v. Federico, 752 A.2d 1037 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 4× “The court concluded, however, that Elm City’s claims were governed by General Statutes § 35-57 (a), which provides in relevant part that, “[u]nless otherwise agreed by the parties, the provisions of [the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (trade secrets act); General Statutes § 35-50 et…”
Smith v. Snyder, 839 A.2d 589 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “” The trial court concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages under common law, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, General Statutes § 35-50 et seq., and CUTPA.”
Lydall, Inc. v. Ruschmeyer, 919 A.2d 421 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “We conclude that the trial court (1) properly found that a specific item of information that Ruschmeyer had disclosed was a trade secret, (2) correctly determined that Ruschmeyer had violated CUTSA by disclosing that information but improperly determined that Ruschmeyer’s…”
News Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc. v. Marquis, 22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 357 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “(Floorgraphics), alleging (1) breach of the duty of loyalty, (2) violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (trade secrets act), General Statutes § 35-50 et seq., (3) conversion, (4) statutory theft, and (5) unauthorized access to and misuse of the plaintiff’s computer system in…”
Bank of New York v. Bell, 993 A.2d 1022 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “What constitutes a trade secret is set forth in General Statutes § 35-51(d), which is part of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, General Statutes § 35-50 et seq. Section 35-51(d) provides in relevant part that "`trade secret' means information, including a formula,…”
Manere v. Collins, 200 Conn. App. 356 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “But see General Statutes §§ 35-51 (b) and 35-53 (defining ‘‘[m]isappropriation’’ as cause of action specifically con- cerning misappropriation of trade secrets and providing for monetary damages under Uniform Trade Secrets Act, General Statutes § 35-50 et seq.). We believe, how-…”
MacDermid Printing Solutions LLC v. Cortron Corp., 833 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2016). “MacDermid also brought claims under the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-50 to 35-58; under the state computer-crime statute, Conn.”
Evans v. Gen. Motors Corp., 893 A.2d 371 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 2× “2 In 1994, Evans commenced this action against General Motors seeking to recover damages 3 for: (1) misappropriation of a trade secret in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), General Statutes § 35-50 et seq.; (2) misappropriation of a trade secret…”
Roller Bearing Co. of Am., Inc. v. Am. Software, Inc., 570 F. Supp. 2d 376 (D. Conn. 2008). “§ 35-50, Ga. Code § 10-1-760, and 15 U.S.”
Radolf v. Univ. of Connecticut, 364 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D. Conn. 2005). · cites it 2× “Radolf alleges that all of the Defendants have violated his trade secret rights under the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. §§ 35-50 et seq. In Count 6 of the First Substituted Complaint *229 [doc.”
Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 1 A.3d 21 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 2× “Additionally, the legislature’s appreciation for the value of trade secrets to their owners and the need for their protection is evidenced by its passage of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (trade secrets act), General Statutes § 35-50 et seq., which permits actions for…”
On-Line Tech., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer Gmbh, Perkin-Elmer Corp., Perkin-Elmer Inc., Sick Upa Gmbh, & Sick, A.G., 386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “II Invoking the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction, On-Line raised a number of state law claims, including claims that Perkin-Elmer had misappropriated five trade secrets relating to On-Line’s gas cell, in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Conn.…”
Show all 47 citing cases →
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.