Del. C. » Title 6 — SUBTITLE II · Commerce and Trade
Delaware Code

6 Del. C. § 2004 (2026)

Attorneys’ fees

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or wilful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.

63 Del. Laws, c. 218, §  1; 
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · 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). “176 Additionally, 6 Del. C. § 2004 provides that “if ... wilful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorneys fees to the prevailing party.”
Mattern & Assocs., L.L.C. v. Seidel, 678 F. Supp. 2d 256 (D. Del. 2010). “” 6 Del. C. § 2004. Because the evidence favors application of this remedy, the court concludes that Seidel must pay M & A’s reasonable attorney fees.”
Smash Franchise Partners, LLC v. Kanda Holdings, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2023). · cites it 2× “” 6 Del. C. § 2004. Smash dropped its claim under DUTSA on the eve of trial, making the defendants the prevailing party.”
Kevin McLaren v. Smash Franchise Partners, LLC (Del. 2024). · cites it 2× “[a]warding Defendant Kevin McLaren his costs, including reasonable attorney[’s] fees pursuant to the bad faith exception to the American Rule regarding attorney[’s] fees and to 6 Del. C. § 2004 [attorney’s fees provision of DUTSA], 6 Del.”
Liqwd, Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2019). “§ 1836 (b)(3)(B); 6 Del. C. § 2004. The Court also found that there was a complete absence of evidence of L’Oreal’s Lanham Act Claim, as it involved puffing by the parties.”
Zagg, Inc. v. Dermot Keogh (Del. Ch. 2025). “But at what point will our customers feel that the things we are doing have shifted from simply protecting our business to us trying to destroy someone’s livelihood[?]”).”
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. v. Anthony Mack (Del. Ch. 2025). “See 6 Del. C. § 2004 (“If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or wilful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.”
Arxada Holdings NA Inc. v. Harvey (Del. Ch. 2026). “Breach Of The Non-Competition Covenant In the non-competition covenant, Mike committed not to 273 6 Del. C. § 2004. 274 SPA § 12.13. 275 Trifecta Multimedia Hldgs.”
Utilisave, LLC, a Delaware LLC & MHS Venture Mgmt. Corp v. Mikhail Khenin (Del. Ch. 2015). “115 6 Del. C. § 2004 (―If … wilful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney‘s fees to the prevailing party.”
Utilisave LLC, a Delaware LLC & MHS Venture Mgmt. Corp. v. Mikhail Khenin (Del. Ch. 2015). “6 Del. C. § 2004. 27 Khenin disputes the factual basis for my conclusions, arguing that the evidence is “irrefutable” that he downloaded the information solely as an emergency backup for Utilisave and that there is no proof that the download was made to Venergex computers.”
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.