Delaware Code

6 Del. C. § 2001 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

(1) “Improper means” shall include theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means.

(2) “Misappropriation” shall mean:

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:

1. Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or

2. At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the trade 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

3. Before a material change of the 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) “Person” shall mean a natural person, corporation, statutory trust, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity.

(4) “Trade secret” shall mean information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process, that:

a. Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

b. Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

63 Del. Laws, c. 218, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1; 73 Del. Laws, c. 329, § 33;

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 66 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Beard Rsch., Inc. v. Kates, 8 A.3d 573 (Del. Ch. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Beard Rsch., Inc. v. Kates, 8 A.3d 573 (Del. Ch. 2010). · cites it 8× “6 Del. C. § 2001(1). 152 . While Plaintiffs also accuse Wagaman and Jones of misappropriating their trade secrets, they failed to produce any evidence upon which I could find Wagaman or Jones liable for such conduct.”

Accenture Global Servs. GmbH v. Guidewire Software Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 654 (D. Del. 2008). · cites it 5× “Standards Trade secret misappropriation claims are governed by the Delaware Uniform *662 Trade Secrets Act (“DUTSA”), 6 Del. C. §§ 2001 et seq. 6 The DUTSA defines trade secret misappropriation as the “[a]c-quisition of a trade secret[ 7 ] of another by a person who knows or has…”

Ethypharm S.A. France v. Bentley Pharm., Inc., 388 F. Supp. 2d 426 (D. Del. 2005). · cites it 3× “Preemption of Common Law Claims By DUTSA Plaintiff alleges fraud (count one), violation of 6 Del. C. § 2001 et seq (count two), unjust enrichment (count three) and intentional interference with actual and prospective business relationships (count four).”

Beard Rsch., Inc. v. Kates (In re Kates), 485 B.R. 86 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012). · cites it 3× “” 6 Del. C. § 2001(1). . The Chancery Court described the CB Tree-Based Catalog System as: the information needed to set up and operate a catalog business in a fashion mimicking the successful way CB ran its catalog business.”

Dow Chem. Canada Inc. v. HRD Corp., 909 F. Supp. 2d 340 (D. Del. 2012). · cites it 2× “Delaware has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, codified at 6 Del. C. § 2001. The party seeking to make a misappropriation claim must establish four elements: (1) the existence of a trade secret; (2) the communication of a trade secret by plaintiff to the defendant; (3)…”

Abrasic 90 Inc. v. Weldcote Metals, Inc., 364 F. Supp. 3d 888 (E.D. Ill. 2019). “That is because they are preempted by either the ITSA or the Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("DUTSA"), 6 Del. C. § 2001 et seq. And to the extent those state law causes of action are not based on the alleged misappropriation, they cannot provide a basis for injunctive relief…”

Mattern & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Seidel, 678 F. Supp. 2d 256 (D. Del. 2010). · cites it 2× “2008) (quoting 6 Del. C. § 2001(2)). The jury could reasonably conclude that much of the information contained in Seidel’s image of the M & A laptop hard drive qualifies for trade secret protection.”

Accenture Global Servs. GmbH v. Guidewire Software Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 577 (D. Del. 2010). · cites it 2× “See 6 Del. C. § 2001(2). The DUTSA provides that [a]n action for misappropriation must be brought within 3 years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.”

Accenture Global Servs. GmbH v. Guidewire Software Inc., 631 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D. Del. 2009). “Analysis Defendant argues that plaintiffs’ fourth claim — tortious interference with business relations (“tortious interference”) — should be dismissed because it is preempted by the Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“DUTSA”), 6 Del.”

Mobile Med. Int'l Corp. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 706 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “’” (quoting 6 Del. C. § 2001(4) (2010))). “A trade secret can exist in a combination of characteristics and components, each of which, by itself, is in the public domain, but the unified process, design and operation of which, in unique combination, affords a competitive…”

Inno360, Inc. v. Zakta, LLC, 50 F. Supp. 3d 587 (D. Del. 2014). “; (5) misappropriation and misuse of confidential trade secret information, without authorization, under the Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 6 Del. C. § 2001 et seq.; (6) breach of contract; (7) tortious interference with a contract; and (8) tor-tious interference with a…”

Raza v. Siemens Med. Solutions USA Inc., 607 F. Supp. 2d 689 (D. Del. 2009). “Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs claim for unjust enrichment is preempted by the Delaware Uniform Trade Secret Act, 6 Del. C. § 2001, et seq. In his Answer Brief, Plaintiff agrees that his unjust enrichment claim is preempted by the Delaware Uniform Trade Secret Act and…”

Show all 66 citing cases →

— 6 Del. C. § 2001(1) — 4 cases

Beard Rsch., Inc. v. Kates, 8 A.3d 573 (Del. Ch. 2010). “6 Del. C. § 2001(1). 152 . While Plaintiffs also accuse Wagaman and Jones of misappropriating their trade secrets, they failed to produce any evidence upon which I could find Wagaman or Jones liable for such conduct.”

Beard Rsch., Inc. v. Kates (In re Kates), 485 B.R. 86 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2012). “” 6 Del. C. § 2001(1). . The Chancery Court described the CB Tree-Based Catalog System as: the information needed to set up and operate a catalog business in a fashion mimicking the successful way CB ran its catalog business.”

Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A. (D. Del. 2020).

Hemostemix, Inc. v. Accudata Solutions, Inc. (D. Del. 2021).

— 6 Del. C. § 2001(2) — 14 cases

Ethypharm S.A. France v. Bentley Pharm., Inc., 388 F. Supp. 2d 426 (D. Del. 2005). “Preemption of Common Law Claims By DUTSA Plaintiff alleges fraud (count one), violation of 6 Del. C. § 2001 et seq (count two), unjust enrichment (count three) and intentional interference with actual and prospective business relationships (count four).”

Accenture Global Servs. GmbH v. Guidewire Software Inc., 691 F. Supp. 2d 577 (D. Del. 2010). “See 6 Del. C. § 2001(2). The DUTSA provides that [a]n action for misappropriation must be brought within 3 years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.”

Accenture Global Servs. GmbH v. Guidewire Software Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 654 (D. Del. 2008). “Standards Trade secret misappropriation claims are governed by the Delaware Uniform *662 Trade Secrets Act (“DUTSA”), 6 Del. C. §§ 2001 et seq. 6 The DUTSA defines trade secret misappropriation as the “[a]c-quisition of a trade secret[ 7 ] of another by a person who knows or has…”

— 6 Del. C. § 2001(2)(a) — 2 cases

Arxada Holdings NA Inc. v. Harvey (Del. Ch. 2026).

— 6 Del. C. § 2001(2)(b) — 5 cases

iBio, Inc. v. Fraunhofer USA, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2020).

Flexwage Solutions LLC v. Ceridian HCM Holding Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).

You Map, Inc. v. Snap Inc. (D. Del. 2021).

You Map, Inc. v. Snap Inc. (D. Del. 2022).

Arxada Holdings NA Inc. v. Harvey (Del. Ch. 2026).

— 6 Del. C. § 2001(2)(b)(2) — 1 case

BrandRep, LLC v. Chad Ruskey (Del. Ch. 2019).

— 6 Del. C. § 2001(2)(b)(2)(B) — 1 case

Flexwage Solutions LLC v. Ceridian HCM Holding Inc. (Del. Super. Ct. 2024).

— 6 Del. C. § 2001(3) — 1 case

Utilisave LLC, a Delaware LLC & MHS Venture Mgmt. Corp. v. Mikhail Khenin (Del. Ch. 2015).

— 6 Del. C. § 2001(4) — 25 cases

Dow Chem. Canada Inc. v. HRD Corp., 909 F. Supp. 2d 340 (D. Del. 2012). “Delaware has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, codified at 6 Del. C. § 2001. The party seeking to make a misappropriation claim must establish four elements: (1) the existence of a trade secret; (2) the communication of a trade secret by plaintiff to the defendant; (3)…”

Mattern & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Seidel, 678 F. Supp. 2d 256 (D. Del. 2010). “2008) (quoting 6 Del. C. § 2001(2)). The jury could reasonably conclude that much of the information contained in Seidel’s image of the M & A laptop hard drive qualifies for trade secret protection.”

— 6 Del. C. § 2001(4)(a) — 1 case

U.S. Legal Support, Inc. v. Paul Lucido (Del. Ch. 2021).

— 6 Del. C. § 2001(4)(b) — 3 cases

BrandRep, LLC v. Chad Ruskey (Del. Ch. 2019).

DAT Solutions, LLC v. Convoy, Inc. (D. Or. 2023).

Arxada Holdings NA Inc. v. Harvey (Del. Ch. 2026).

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.