Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 10
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1541 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Trade Secrets Act."   [PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case: Evans v. Gen. Motors Corp., 893 A.2d 371 (Conn. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Evans v. Gen. Motors Corp., 893 A.2d 371 (Conn. 2006). “(2003); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1541 etseq.”
OfficeMax Inc. v. Cnty. Qwick Print, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D. Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “The Court presumes that the parties arguments on this point mirror their arguments regarding violation of the Maine Trade Secrets Act (MTSA), 10 M.R.S.A. § 1541 et seq., as both claims rely on the same evidence.”
RF Tech. Corp. v. Applied Microwave Tech., Inc., 369 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D. Me. 2005). “1 Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges conversion (Count I), breach of contract (Count II), misappropri *19 ation of trade secrets in violation of 10 M.R.S.A. § 1541 et seq. (Count III), and unfair competition (Count IV).”
RF Tech. Corp. v. Applied Microwave Tech., Inc., 369 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D. Me. 2005). “Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges conversion (Count I), breach of contract (Count II), misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of 10 M.R.S.A. § 1541 et seq. (Count III), and unfair competition (Count IV).”
Woodfords Fam. Servs., Inc. v. Casey, 832 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D. Me. 2011). · cites it 2× “The other Counts seek declaratory and injunctive relief on four state law claims, namely, misappropriation of trade secrets, 10 M.R.S.A. § 1541, misappropriation of an idea, breach of fiduciary duty or confidential relationship, and unjust enrichment.”
Pearl Investments, LLC v. Stand. i/o, Inc., 297 F. Supp. 2d 335 (D. Me. 2004). “Maine state law (here, the Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 10 M.R.S.A. §§ 1541 et seq.) defines the substantive rights at issue, and, thus, governs the availability and scope of any injunctive relief that can be granted by the court.”
New England Surfaces v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 517 F. Supp. 2d 466 (D. Me. 2007). “From the Second Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs opposition to the motions for summary judgment, it is not clear whether Plaintiff is asserting a common law or statutory cause of action.”
Tidesmart Global LLC v. Jackowitz (D. Me. 2022). “, and the Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 10 M.R.S. §§ 1541 et seq. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant’s exportation of Plaintiff’s proprietary client information amounted to conversion under Maine law.”
Idexx Labs. Inc v. Bilbrough (D. Me. 2022). “, and the Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUSTA), 10 M.R.S. §§ 1541 et seq. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant from (1) directly or indirectly disclosing or using Plaintiff’s trade secret information in his employment with Antech; and (2) directly or…”
Jubilant Generics Ltd. v. Dechra Veterinary Prods. LLC (D. Me. 2024). “Jubilant asserts the following claims in its Complaint: (1) breach of contract (Count I); (2) misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 10 M.R.S.A. §§ 1541- 1548 (West 2024) (Count II); (3) violation of the federal Defend Trade…”
Residential Mortage Svs., Inc. v. Dauphinee (Me. Super. Ct 2009). “In Count II of its complaint, RMS brings an independent claim under 10 M.R.S. § 1541 et seq., contending that Dauphinee has also misappropriated trade secrets subject to protection under that statute.”
State of Maine v. Cent. Maine Healthcare Corp. (Me. Super. Ct 2011). “Its two-count complaint seeks damages for alleged violations of the Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act ["the Act"], 10 M.R.S. §§ 1541 et seq., and for unjust enrichment.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.