Ind. Code § 24-2-3-1
Short title; construction; purpose
Sec. 1. (a) This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
(b) This chapter shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject matter of this chapter among states enacting the provisions of this chapter.
(c) The chapter displaces all conflicting law of this state pertaining to the misappropriation of trade secrets, except contract law and criminal law.
As added by Acts 1982, P.L.148, SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Infinity Products, Inc. v. Quandt
Infinity Products, Inc. v. Quandt (2004)
“While the uniform act declares that it does not displace criminal law, Ind.Code § 24-2-3-1, we leave open the question whether civil provisions for treble damages based on certain criminal acts is covered by this declaration.”
AGS Capital Corp. v. Product Action International, LLC (2008)
“However, the Court generally noted: "While the uniform act declares that it does not displace criminal law, Ind.Code § 24-2-3-1, we leave open the question whether civil provisions for treble damages based on certain criminal acts is covered by this declaration.”
U.S. Land Services, Inc. v. U.S. Surveyor, Inc. (2005)
“Whether the trial court's finding that Surveyor's customer, prospect, and surveyor lists are trade secrets under the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Ind.Code § 24-2-3-1 to -8, is clearly erroneous; and II.”
HDNET, LLC v. North American Boxing Council (2012)
“NABC reasons that the preemption provision applies only to “trade secrets” and that its claim of idea misappropriation does not “pertain” to a “trade secret” as the term is used in the IUTSA.”
CoMentis, Inc. v. Purdue Research Foundation (2011)
“Ind. Code § 24-2-3-1 et seq. A “trade secret” is information that: “(1) 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…”
Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc. v. Mayberry (2007)
“2d at 917 ; see Ind.Code Ann. § 24-2-3-1 (b) (West 2007) (stating the purpose of the Indiana UTSA is to make uniform trade secret law among the states).”
Rolls-Royce Corp. v. Heros, Inc. (2008)
“Because Rolls-Royce’s corporate headquarters is in the state of Indiana, where Rolls-Royce asserts that its injury occurred, Rolls-Royce brings this claim under Indiana law, Ind.Code § 24-2-3-1 et seq. (2006). Rolls-Royce also alleges that it is entitled to replevin under…”
Amoco Production Co. v. Laird (1993)
“We grant transfer in this case of first impression to address the meaning of the phrase “not being readily ascertainable” as used in the Indiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Ind.Code § 24-2-3-1, et seq., substantially derived from the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 14 Uniform Laws…”
Vukovich v. Coleman (2003)
“Ind.Code § 24-2-3-1 to -8. 2 . The trial court did not enter specific findings of fact as required by Ind.”
Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Ass'n v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc. (1991)
“Ind.Code Ann. § 24-2-3-1, et seq. (West 1990).”
Harvest Life Insurance v. Getche (1998)
“TRADE SECRETS Harvest contends that Getche violated the Indiana Trade Secrets Act, Ind.Code § 24-2-3-1 et seq., by misappropriating Harvest’s trade secrets and confidential information, namely, the policyholder lists.”
Steenhoven v. College Life Insurance Co. of America (1984)
“Ind.Code §§ 24-2-3-1 to -8 (1982). 3 . While the statute is also drawn in terms of disclosure of a trade secret, appellee's argument clearly addresses Steenhoven's alleged improper use.”
— Ind. Code § 24-2-3-1(b) — 2 cases
Infinity Products, Inc. v. Quandt (2004)
“While the uniform act declares that it does not displace criminal law, Ind.Code § 24-2-3-1, we leave open the question whether civil provisions for treble damages based on certain criminal acts is covered by this declaration.”
AGS Capital Corp. v. Product Action International, LLC (2008)
“However, the Court generally noted: "While the uniform act declares that it does not displace criminal law, Ind.Code § 24-2-3-1, we leave open the question whether civil provisions for treble damages based on certain criminal acts is covered by this declaration.”
— Ind. Code § 24-2-3-1(c) — 8 cases
Infinity Products, Inc. v. Quandt (2004)
“While the uniform act declares that it does not displace criminal law, Ind.Code § 24-2-3-1, we leave open the question whether civil provisions for treble damages based on certain criminal acts is covered by this declaration.”
AGS Capital Corp. v. Product Action International, LLC (2008)
“However, the Court generally noted: "While the uniform act declares that it does not displace criminal law, Ind.Code § 24-2-3-1, we leave open the question whether civil provisions for treble damages based on certain criminal acts is covered by this declaration.”
CoMentis, Inc. v. Purdue Research Foundation (2011)
“Ind. Code § 24-2-3-1 et seq. A “trade secret” is information that: “(1) 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…”
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.