Iowa Code » Chapter 550 — TRADE SECRETS
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 550.3 (2026)

Injunctive relief

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. The owner of a trade secret may petition the district court to enjoin an actual or threatened misappropriation. Upon application to the district court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist. However, the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate a commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.

2. In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use of a trade secret upon payment of a reasonable royalty. The payment of a royalty shall continue for a period no longer than the period for which use of the trade secret may be prohibited. Exceptional \n Tue Dec 09 22:01:43 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 550 (16, 0) §550.3, TRADE SECRETS 2\n\ncircumstances include, but are not limited to, a material and prejudicial change of position of the person prior to acquiring knowledge of a misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable.

3. In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order. 90 Acts, ch 1201, §3 \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1961–2017 · leading case: Interbake Foods, L.L.C. v. Tomasiello, 461 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Iowa 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Interbake Foods, L.L.C. v. Tomasiello, 461 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Iowa 2006). · cites it 5× “In other cases applying Iowa law, this court has held that a plaintiff can prove trade secret misappropriation in violation of the Trade Secrets Act by proving inevitable disclosure, relying on Iowa Code § 550.3 (1), which codifies protection against threatened misappropriation.”
205 CORP. v. Brandow, 517 N.W.2d 548 (Iowa 1994). · cites it 6× “Iowa Code § 550.3 . Under chapter 550, a trade secret means: [IJnformation, including but not limited to a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that is both of the following: a.”
Cemen Tech, Inc. v. Three D Indus., L.L.C., 753 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2008). · cites it 2× “Iowa Code §§ 550.3 (1), 550.4(1). A trade secret is defined as information, including but not limited to a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that is both of the following: a.”
Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Yantis, 358 F. Supp. 2d 818 (N.D. Iowa 2005). · cites it 4× “See Iowa Code § 550.3 (1) (codifying protection against threatened misappropriation).”
Lemmon v. Hendrickson, 559 N.W.2d 278 (Iowa 1997). · cites it 4× “Iowa Code § 550.3 (1) (1995). But in this case, we find that there was neither actual nor threatened appropriation.”
Wachovia Sec., L.L.C. v. Stanton, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (N.D. Iowa 2008). · cites it 2× “2d 641 (Iowa 1995): Iowa Code section 550.3(1) (1991) provides that “[t]he owner of a trade secret may petition the district court to enjoin an actual or threatened misappropriation.”
Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade, 878 F. Supp. 1224 (N.D. Iowa 1995). · cites it 2× “Curtis 1000’s amended complaint seeks, in Count I, an injunction for breach of contract, and, in Count II, an injunction for violation of Iowa’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Iowa Code § 550.3 (1993). A return of service was executed on defendant Daniel Youngblade on January 11,…”
Econ. Roofing & Insulating Co. v. Zumaris, 538 N.W.2d 641 (Iowa 1995). · cites it 2× “Iowa Code section 550.3(1) (1991) provides that “[t]he owner of a trade secret may petition the district court to enjoin an actual or threatened misappropriation.”
Diversified Fastening Sys., Inc. v. Rogge, 786 F. Supp. 1486 (N.D. Iowa 1991). · cites it 6× “Iowa Code § 550.3 (1) allows a court to enjoin the actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Uncle B's Bakery, Inc. v. O'ROURKE, 920 F. Supp. 1405 (N.D. Iowa 1996). · cites it 2× “2d 641 (Iowa 1995): Iowa Code section 550.3(1) (1991) provides that “[t]he owner of a trade secret may petition the district court to enjoin an actual or threatened misappropriation.”
REG Seneca, LLC v. Harden, 938 F. Supp. 2d 852 (S.D. Iowa 2013). · cites it 4× “” Iowa Code § 550.3 (1). Iowa Code section 550.”
Walker Mfg., Inc. v. Hoffmann, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (N.D. Iowa 2003). · cites it 2× “2d 278, 279 (Iowa 1997) (quoting Iowa Code § 550.3 (1)). Similarly, “[s]ection 550.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Iowa Code § 550.3(1) — 8 cases
Wachovia Sec., L.L.C. v. Stanton, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (N.D. Iowa 2008). “2d 641 (Iowa 1995): Iowa Code section 550.3(1) (1991) provides that “[t]he owner of a trade secret may petition the district court to enjoin an actual or threatened misappropriation.”
Interbake Foods, L.L.C. v. Tomasiello, 461 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Iowa 2006). “In other cases applying Iowa law, this court has held that a plaintiff can prove trade secret misappropriation in violation of the Trade Secrets Act by proving inevitable disclosure, relying on Iowa Code § 550.3 (1), which codifies protection against threatened misappropriation.”
Econ. Roofing & Insulating Co. v. Zumaris, 538 N.W.2d 641 (Iowa 1995). “Iowa Code section 550.3(1) (1991) provides that “[t]he owner of a trade secret may petition the district court to enjoin an actual or threatened misappropriation.”
Uncle B's Bakery, Inc. v. O'ROURKE, 920 F. Supp. 1405 (N.D. Iowa 1996). “2d 641 (Iowa 1995): Iowa Code section 550.3(1) (1991) provides that “[t]he owner of a trade secret may petition the district court to enjoin an actual or threatened misappropriation.”
Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Yantis, 358 F. Supp. 2d 818 (N.D. Iowa 2005). “See Iowa Code § 550.3 (1) (codifying protection against threatened misappropriation).”
— Iowa Code § 550.3(a) — 2 cases
205 CORP. v. Brandow, 517 N.W.2d 548 (Iowa 1994). “Iowa Code § 550.3 . Under chapter 550, a trade secret means: [IJnformation, including but not limited to a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that is both of the following: a.”
Shi R2 Solutions, Inc., D/B/A Deimco Finishing Equip. v. Pella Corp. (Iowa Ct. App. 2015).
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.