Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 42A (2026)

Trade secrets; injunctive relief

✓ 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 42A. (a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined upon principles of equity, including but not limited to consideration of prior party conduct and circumstances of potential use, upon a showing that information qualifying as a trade secret has been or is threatened to be misappropriated. Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate any economic advantage that otherwise would be derived from misappropriation.

(b) In exceptional circumstances, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time for which use could have been prohibited. Exceptional circumstances include, but are not limited to, a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation that renders a prohibitive injunction inequitable.

(c) In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case: Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. Crampton, 385 N.E.2d 1349 (Mass. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. Crampton, 385 N.E.2d 1349 (Mass. 1979). · cites it 2× “Whether or not the case is tried by a jury, the court in its discretion, may increase the damages up to double the amount found.”

Oscomp Sys., Inc. v. Bakken Express, LLC, 930 F. Supp. 2d 261 (D. Mass. 2013). “93A (Count IV), and injunctive relief or relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 42A (Count V). On May 31, 2012, more than two months after OsComp brought its action against Bakken in Massachusetts state court, and more than three months after Bakken filed its lawsuit in Texas…”

Lantor, Inc. v. Ellis, 9 Mass. L. Rptr. 221 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1998). “G.L.c. 93, §42A provides: In an action by an employer against a former employee under the provisions of this section for the conversion of a trade secret and where such conversion is in violation of the terms of a written employment agreement between said employer and employee,…”

Unitrode Corp. v. Linear Tech. Corp., 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 145 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2000). “Moreover, Unitrode does not base its claim on G.L.c. 93, §42A, as Linear appears to suggest.”

Maine Pointe, LLC v. Collins (D. Mass. 2018). “5 Mass. Gen. L. c. 93 § 42A authorized injunctive relief prior to October 1, 2018 and continues to authorize such relief in the amended statute.”

Sensitech, Inc. v. LimeStone FZE (D. Mass. 2021). “In June, 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging against LimeStone breach of contract (Count I)and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count II); and, against both defendants, Conversion (Count III); violation of the Massachusetts Trade Secrets…”

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.