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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1542 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.   [PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW).]
1.  Improper means.  "Improper means" means theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of duty to maintain secrecy or espionage through electronic or other means.  
[PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW).]
2.  Misappropriation.  "Misappropriation" means:  
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   [PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW).]
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;  
(2) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that the person's knowledge of the trade secret was:  
(i) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;  
(ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or  
(iii) 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.   [RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. C, §§43, 44 (COR).]
[RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. C, §§43, 44 (COR).]
3.  Person.  "Person" means a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency or any other legal or commercial entity.  
[PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW).]
4.  Trade secret.  "Trade secret" means information, including, but not limited to, 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   [PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW).]
B. Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.   [PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW).]
[PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1987, c. 143 (NEW). RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. C, §§43, 44 (COR).
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 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Spottiswoode v. Levine, 1999 ME 79 (Me. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spottiswoode v. Levine, 1999 ME 79 (Me. 1999). · cites it 6× “10 M.R.S.A. § 1542 (1997) provides: § 1542.”
Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers, 2001 ME 17 (Me. 2001). · cites it 3× “10 M.R.S.A. § 1542 provides in pertinent part: § 1542.”
Town of Burlington v. Hosp. Admin. Dist. No. 1, 2001 ME 59 (Me. 2001). · cites it 2× “" 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(4)(A) (1997). Furthermore, the information must be the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.”
Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass'n v. Rowe, 307 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D. Me. 2004). · cites it 3× “10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(4). In Spottiswoode v.”
RF Tech. Corp. v. Applied Microwave Tech., Inc., 369 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D. Me. 2005). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs’ Claim Under the Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act The Maine Law Court has stated that “a court examining a claim under the UTSA [Uniform Trade Secret Act] must determine whether the information at issue constitutes a ‘trade secret,’ as that term is defined in 10…”
OfficeMax Inc. v. Cnty. Qwick Print, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D. Me. 2011). · cites it 3× “(2) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was: (ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person…”
Maine Educ. Ass'n Benefits Trust v. Cioppa, 695 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2012). “Although it is far from clear that the loss information would qualify as a trade secret under Maine law, see Me.Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1542(4), we assume, arguendo, that it comprises a sufficient property interest on which to ground a Fifth Amendment takings claim.”
Outside Television, Inc. v. Murin, 977 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Me. 2013). · cites it 2× “OTV also claims Murin has misappropriated its customer data and prospect lists in violation of Maine’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542. i. Customer Data and Prospect Lists OTV’s primary claim that Murin breached the employment agreement’s restrictions against…”
Med. Mut. Ins. v. Bureau of Ins., 2005 ME 12 (Me. 2005). “2d at 864 (quoting 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(4)(A) (1997)). [¶ 14] Medical Mutual has not shown that the salary information comes within the definition of a trade secret; that is, it failed to demonstrate to the Superintendent that the salary information had independent economic value…”
Ne. Coating Tech., Inc. v. Vacuum Metallurgical Co., 684 A.2d 1322 (Me. 1996). “” 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(4)(B). There was nothing presented to the trial court to support a conclusion that NCT took such reasonable efforts to protect the information in its prospectus.”
Woodfords Fam. Servs., Inc. v. Casey, 832 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D. Me. 2011). · cites it 3× “acquired under cir *95 cumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use____ 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(2). The parties' argument has not focused on whether this definition fits Casey’s conduct, so I do not address that topic either.”
New England Surfaces v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 517 F. Supp. 2d 466 (D. Me. 2007). “at 174-75 (citing 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(4)). *496 The Law Court has articulated several factors for a court to consider to determine whether the information has been the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of the information: (1) the extent to which the…”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1542(1) — 2 cases
Alco Co., Inc v. Ace Trailer Agency (Me. Super. Ct 2016).
Aragon (D. Me. 2025).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1542(2) — 4 cases
OfficeMax Inc. v. Cnty. Qwick Print, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D. Me. 2011). “(2) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was: (ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person…”
Woodfords Fam. Servs., Inc. v. Casey, 832 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D. Me. 2011). “acquired under cir *95 cumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use____ 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(2). The parties' argument has not focused on whether this definition fits Casey’s conduct, so I do not address that topic either.”
Alco Co., Inc v. Ace Trailer Agency (Me. Super. Ct 2016).
UIG, Inc. v. Guerin (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1542(2)(B) — 2 cases
Spottiswoode v. Levine, 1999 ME 79 (Me. 1999). “10 M.R.S.A. § 1542 (1997) provides: § 1542.”
UIG, Inc. v. Guerin (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1542(2)(B)(2)(ii) — 3 cases
Cianchette v. Cianchette (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
UIG, Inc. v. Guerin (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
Androscoggin Sav. Bank v. Barton Mortg. Corp. (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1542(2)(B)(2)(iii) — 1 case
Vacation Hotdeal Cos., Inc. v. Easy Timeshare Resales (Me. Super. Ct 2011).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1542(2)(b)(ii) — 1 case
OfficeMax Inc. v. Cnty. Qwick Print, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D. Me. 2011). “(2) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was: (ii) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1542(4) — 19 cases
Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers, 2001 ME 17 (Me. 2001). “10 M.R.S.A. § 1542 provides in pertinent part: § 1542.”
Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass'n v. Rowe, 307 F. Supp. 2d 164 (D. Me. 2004). “10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(4). In Spottiswoode v.”
Spottiswoode v. Levine, 1999 ME 79 (Me. 1999). “10 M.R.S.A. § 1542 (1997) provides: § 1542.”
RF Tech. Corp. v. Applied Microwave Tech., Inc., 369 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D. Me. 2005). “Plaintiffs’ Claim Under the Maine Uniform Trade Secrets Act The Maine Law Court has stated that “a court examining a claim under the UTSA [Uniform Trade Secret Act] must determine whether the information at issue constitutes a ‘trade secret,’ as that term is defined in 10…”
Maine Educ. Ass'n Benefits Trust v. Cioppa, 695 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2012). “Although it is far from clear that the loss information would qualify as a trade secret under Maine law, see Me.Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1542(4), we assume, arguendo, that it comprises a sufficient property interest on which to ground a Fifth Amendment takings claim.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1542(4)(A) — 5 cases
Town of Burlington v. Hosp. Admin. Dist. No. 1, 2001 ME 59 (Me. 2001). “" 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(4)(A) (1997). Furthermore, the information must be the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.”
Spottiswoode v. Levine, 1999 ME 79 (Me. 1999). “10 M.R.S.A. § 1542 (1997) provides: § 1542.”
Med. Mut. Ins. v. Bureau of Ins., 2005 ME 12 (Me. 2005). “2d at 864 (quoting 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(4)(A) (1997)). [¶ 14] Medical Mutual has not shown that the salary information comes within the definition of a trade secret; that is, it failed to demonstrate to the Superintendent that the salary information had independent economic value…”
Androscoggin Sav. Bank v. Barton Mortg. Corp. (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
Cianchette v. Cianchette (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1542(4)(B) — 5 cases
Spottiswoode v. Levine, 1999 ME 79 (Me. 1999). “10 M.R.S.A. § 1542 (1997) provides: § 1542.”
Ne. Coating Tech., Inc. v. Vacuum Metallurgical Co., 684 A.2d 1322 (Me. 1996). “” 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(4)(B). There was nothing presented to the trial court to support a conclusion that NCT took such reasonable efforts to protect the information in its prospectus.”
Woodfords Fam. Servs., Inc. v. Casey, 832 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D. Me. 2011). “acquired under cir *95 cumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use____ 10 M.R.S.A. § 1542(2). The parties' argument has not focused on whether this definition fits Casey’s conduct, so I do not address that topic either.”
Bayview Court Assocs., LLC v. City of Portland (Me. Super. Ct 2022).
Androscoggin Sav. Bank v. Barton Mortg. Corp. (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
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.