Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XV Chapter 93
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 42 (2026)

Trade secrets; definitions applicable to Secs. 42 to 42G

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Text of section applicable as provided by 2018, 228, Sec. 70.]

Section 42. As used in this section and in sections 42A to 42G, inclusive, the following words, shall unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following meanings:

(1) ''Improper means'', includes, without limitation, theft, bribery, misrepresentation, unreasonable intrusion into private physical or electronic space, or breach or inducement of a breach of a confidential relationship or other duty to limit acquisition, disclosure or use of information; reverse engineering from properly accessed materials or information is not improper means.

(2) ''Misappropriation'',

(i) an act of acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or who has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or

(ii) an act of disclosure or of use of a trade secret of another without that person's express or implied consent by a person who

(A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret or

(B) at the time of the actor's disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that the actor'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 limit its acquisition, disclosure, or use; or

(III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to limit its acquisition, disclosure, or use; or

(C) before a material change of the actor's position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that the actor's knowledge of it had been acquired by accident, mistake, or through another person's act described in clause (A) of paragraph (ii) or subclauses (I) or (II) of clause (B) of said paragraph (ii) of the definition of Misappropriation.

(3) ''Person'', a natural person, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or commercial entity.

(4) ''Trade secret'', specified or specifiable information, whether or not fixed in tangible form or embodied in any tangible thing, including but not limited to a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, business strategy, customer list, invention, or scientific, technical, financial or customer data that

(i) at the time of the alleged misappropriation, provided economic advantage, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, others who might obtain economic advantage from its acquisition, disclosure or use; and

(ii) at the time of the alleged misappropriation was the subject of efforts that were reasonable under the circumstances, which may include reasonable notice, to protect against it being acquired, disclosed or used without the consent of the person properly asserting rights therein or such person's predecessor in interest.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: USM Corp. v. Marson Fastener Corp., 467 N.E.2d 1271 (Mass. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
USM Corp. v. Marson Fastener Corp., 467 N.E.2d 1271 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 4× “17 Punitive Damages The judge concluded that, because of the defendants’ flagrant misconduct in misappropriating the trade secret, an award of punitive damages was appropriate, and he assessed exemplary damages in the amount of 50% of actual damages.”
Trent Partners & Assocs., Inc. v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 120 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D. Mass. 1999). · cites it 5× “Digital argues that the information the plaintiffs claimed Digital misappropriated is not a “trade secret” and, in the alternative, neither plaintiff made any effort to keep the information confidential. As a preliminary issue, any claim by AB & T pursuant to Mass.”
Amyndas Pharm., S.A. v. Zealand Pharma A/S, 48 F.4th 18 (1st Cir. 2022). “§§ 1839 (5)(A)-(B), 1836(d); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 42 ; see also Oakwood Lab'ys LLC v.”
Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. Crampton, 385 N.E.2d 1349 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 2× “Accord, G.L.c. 93, § 42. Therefore, by focusing on the value of the misappropriated trade secrets, and not on the wrongful conduct of the defendants, the first damage master's assessment of damages was legally incorrect.”
Karter v. Pleasant View Gardens, Inc., 248 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D. Mass. 2017). · cites it 2× “She claims that she “had in her possession certain confidential trade secrets,” that she “took reasonable measures to maintain the confidentiality of the trade secrets,” and that defendants, “by excluding [her] from the new business venture, unlawfully took, carried away, copied…”
Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 825 F. Supp. 340 (D. Mass. 1993). · cites it 3× “The- jury awarded Data General $27,417,000 on its federal copyright infringemént claim and $27,-417,000 on its state law misappropriation of trade secrets claim, Mass.Gen.L. ch. 93, § 42. Finding Grumman’s misappropriation of trade secrets to be willful, I increased the trade…”
Analog Tech., Inc. v. Analog Devices, Inc., 105 F.4th 13 (1st Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “§ 1839 (3)(A), (5)(B); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 42 (2)(ii), (4)(ii).”
Silvaco Data Sys. v. Intel Corp., 184 Cal. App. 4th 210 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 42 .) Moreover the court’s reasoning reflects a certain vagueness, not to say incoherence, about what constituted the trade secret at issue there.”
Incase Inc. v. Timex Corp., 488 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2007). “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 42 . Incase appears not to have brought its claim under the statute, instead relying on the common-law tort of misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Targetsmart Holdings, LLC v. Ghp Advisors, LLC, 366 F. Supp. 3d 195 (D.D.C. 2019). “Finally, TargetSmart asserts two statutory claims - under M.G.L. c. 93 §§ 42 and 42A, and under M.G.”
Blake v. Prof'l Coin Grading Serv., 898 F. Supp. 2d 365 (D. Mass. 2012). “” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 42 . To state a claim for misappropriation of a trade secret, the plaintiff must allege (1) the existence of a trade secret; (2) that the plaintiff took reasonable steps to protect the secret; and (3) that the defendant acquired and used, by improper…”
Lycos, Inc. v. Jackson, 18 Mass. L. Rptr. 256 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “The Complaint, in four counts, alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contractual and business relations against Jackson alone, and misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of G.L.c. 93, §42 et…”
Show all 78 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 42(1) — 6 cases
Viken Detection Corp. v. Videray Tech. Inc. (D. Mass. 2019).
Viken Detection Corp. v. Videray Tech. Inc. (D. Mass. 2020).
Sensitech, Inc. v. LimeStone FZE (D. Mass. 2021).
Sensitech, Inc. v. LimeStone FZE (D. Mass. 2022).
Milliman, Inc. v. Gradient A.I. Corp. (D. Mass. 2023).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 42(2) — 1 case
DraftKings Inc. v. Hermalyn (D. Mass. 2024).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 42(4) — 7 cases
Viken Detection Corp. v. Videray Tech. Inc. (D. Mass. 2019).
Sensitech, Inc. v. LimeStone FZE (D. Mass. 2021).
Sensitech, Inc. v. LimeStone FZE (D. Mass. 2022).
ZipBy USA LLC v. Parzych (D. Mass. 2024).
DraftKings Inc. v. Hermalyn (D. Mass. 2024).
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.