Connecticut General Statutes
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-57 (2025)
Provisions of chapter supersede conflicting law re civil liability. Limitation
✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the provisions of this chapter supersede any conflicting tort, restitutionary, or other law of this state pertaining to civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.
(b) This chapter does not affect: (1) Contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; (2) criminal liability for misappropriation of a trade secret; or (3) the duty of any person or state or municipal agency to disclose information pursuant to section 1-210, sections 31-40j to 31-40p, inclusive, or subsection (c) of section 12-62, or wherever expressly provided by law.
(P.A. 83-344, S. 8; P.A. 95-283, S. 65, 68.)
History: P.A. 95-283 amended Subsec. (b) to make technical change replacing reference to Subsec. (b) of Sec. 12-62 with Subsec. (c) of Sec. 12-62, effective July 6, 1995.
CUTSA preempts noncontractual civil claims against a former employee based on the acquisition, disclosure, or use of confidential information that does not rise to the level of a trade secret; in the absence of evidence that alleged conspirator possessed actual or constructive knowledge of the trade secret, CUTSA, which specifies that only those who have such knowledge be held liable for misappropriation, preempts common law claims involving the theft of trade secrets that dispense with that requirement. 349 C. 513.
| (Return to Chapter Table of Contents) |
(Return to List of Chapters) |
(Return to List of Titles) |
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Nat'l Waste Assocs., LLC v. Scharf, 194 A.3d 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
Nat'l Waste Assocs., LLC v. Scharf, 194 A.3d 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). “1 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the plaintiff could not prevail on its unjust enrichment claims, (2) a nonsolicitation provision in agreements between the plaintiff and its former employees was unenforceable as to its prospective…”
Elm City Cheese Co. v. Federico, 752 A.2d 1037 (Conn. 1999). “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…”
On-Line Tech. v. Perkin Elmer Corp., 141 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D. Conn. 2001). “” Conn.Gen. Stat. § 35-57(a). The statute expressly states, however, that it does not effect “(1) Contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
On-Line Tech., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “On-Line argues that its claim is not preempted because the facts on which its fraud claim is based differ from those that support its misappropriation claim. OnLine contends that its fraud claim is based on the proposed business transaction being negotiated by the parties,…”
Imaginative Rsch. Assocs., Inc. v. Ramirez, 718 F. Supp. 2d 236 (D. Conn. 2010). “, which provides in pertinent part: *248 Conn. Gen.Stat. § 35-57 (emphases added).”
On-Line Tech., Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., 253 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Conn. 2003). “§ 35-57. OLT’s fraud claim is based on its allegation that defendants used: (1) the “ruse” of a possible joint venture in order to get into OLT’s laboratory to steal its trade secrets, and (2) the false representation that defendants had returned OLT’s documents in order to…”
Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy, 321 A.3d 292 (Conn. 2024). “’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Krevis v. Bridgeport, 262 Conn. 813, 818 , 817 A.”
Nora Beverages, Inc. v. Perrier Grp. of Am., Inc., 164 F.3d 736 (2d Cir. 1998). “See Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 35-57(a). However, CUTSA does not preempt “[contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Panterra Engineered Plastics, Inc. v. Transp. Sys. Solutions, LLC, 539 F. Supp. 2d 600 (D. Conn. 2008). “§ 35-57. The Court does not need to decide the preemption issue because there are genuine issues of material fact regarding Panterra’s assertion that it possessed trade secrets and that the defendants misappropriated them.”
Roller Bearing Co. of Am. v. Multicut North Am., Inc., No. 3:18-cv-01212 (D. Conn. Sept. 29, 2023). “” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-57 (a). CUTSA, however, does not preempt “[c]ontractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.”
On-Line Tech. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, No. 2004-1291 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2004). “Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-57 (b). On-Line contends that its fraud claims are not based upon the misappropriation of a trade secret and thus they are not preempted under section 35-57.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-57(a): 6 cases
On-Line Tech. v. Perkin Elmer Corp., 141 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D. Conn. 2001). “” Conn.Gen. Stat. § 35-57(a). The statute expressly states, however, that it does not effect “(1) Contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
On-Line Tech., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “On-Line argues that its claim is not preempted because the facts on which its fraud claim is based differ from those that support its misappropriation claim. OnLine contends that its fraud claim is based on the proposed business transaction being negotiated by the parties,…”
On-Line Tech., Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., 253 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Conn. 2003). “§ 35-57. OLT’s fraud claim is based on its allegation that defendants used: (1) the “ruse” of a possible joint venture in order to get into OLT’s laboratory to steal its trade secrets, and (2) the false representation that defendants had returned OLT’s documents in order to…”
Nora Beverages, Inc. v. Perrier Grp. of Am., Inc., 164 F.3d 736 (2d Cir. 1998). “See Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 35-57(a). However, CUTSA does not preempt “[contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Imaginative Rsch. Assocs., Inc. v. Ramirez, 718 F. Supp. 2d 236 (D. Conn. 2010). “, which provides in pertinent part: *248 Conn. Gen.Stat. § 35-57 (emphases added).”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-57(b): 3 cases
On-Line Tech., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “On-Line argues that its claim is not preempted because the facts on which its fraud claim is based differ from those that support its misappropriation claim. OnLine contends that its fraud claim is based on the proposed business transaction being negotiated by the parties,…”
Imaginative Rsch. Assocs., Inc. v. Ramirez, 718 F. Supp. 2d 236 (D. Conn. 2010). “, which provides in pertinent part: *248 Conn. Gen.Stat. § 35-57 (emphases added).”
Roller Bearing Co. of Am. v. Multicut North Am., Inc., No. 3:18-cv-01212 (D. Conn. Sept. 29, 2023). “” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-57 (a). CUTSA, however, does not preempt “[c]ontractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-57(b)(1): 1 case
On-Line Tech. v. Perkin Elmer Corp., 141 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D. Conn. 2001). “” Conn.Gen. Stat. § 35-57(a). The statute expressly states, however, that it does not effect “(1) Contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation 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.