Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1903 (2026)
Misappropriation; injunction.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT
Act 448 of 1998
445.1903 Misappropriation; injunction.
Sec. 3.
(1) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court of competent jurisdiction, 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 commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.
(2) If a court determines that it would be unreasonable to prohibit future use of a trade secret, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited.
(3) In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.
History: 1998, Act 448, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 1998
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: CMI Int'l, Inc. v. Intermet Int'l Corp., 649 N.W.2d 808 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
CMI Int'l, Inc. v. Intermet Int'l Corp., 649 N.W.2d 808 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “No Michigan case has interpreted the statutory provision concerning threatened misappropriation, MCL 445.1903. Even assuming that the concept of “threatened misappropriation” of trade secrets encompasses a concept of inevitable disclosure, that concept must not compromise the…”
Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. v. Furstenau, 368 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (E.D. Mich. 2019). “MCL § 445.1903. MUTSA "displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Noretto, 495 F. Supp. 2d 645 (E.D. Mich. 2007). “§ 445.1903(1); CMI Int’l., Inc. v. Intermet Int’l Corp.”
Delphi Auto. PLC v. Absmeier, 167 F. Supp. 3d 868 (E.D. Mich. 2016). “Laws § 445.1903. “Misappropriation” is defined by the MUTSA as meaning either of the following: (i) 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.”
Bliss Clearing Niagara, Inc. v. Midwest Brake Bond Co., 270 F. Supp. 2d 943 (W.D. Mich. 2003). “Displacement Under MUTSA The Michigan Legislature enacted MUTSA, Michigan’s version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), to take *946 effect as of October 1, 1998.”
Dura Global Tech., Inc. v. Magna Donnelly Corp., 662 F. Supp. 2d 855 (E.D. Mich. 2009). “§ 445.1903. MUTSA “displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Henkel Corp. v. Cox, 386 F. Supp. 2d 898 (E.D. Mich. 2005). “§ 445.1903. A. Plaintiff will likely succeed in demonstrating that both alleged trade secrets were of the type to qualify as trade secrets under Michigan law.”
Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Marzullo, 591 F. Supp. 2d 924 (E.D. Mich. 2008). “However, Kelly anticipates that given Marzullo’s position with one of its competitors, it is inevitable that Marzullo will use or disclose Kelly’s confidential information and trade secrets.”
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Ran, 67 F. Supp. 2d 764 (E.D. Mich. 1999). “Defendants’ argument lacks merit. Most importantly, the court notes that the contracts at issue here provide that Merrill Lynch has a significant proprietary interest in client information which is to be treated as the exclusive property of Merrill Lynch.”
Watkins & Son Pet Supplies v. Iams Co., 107 F. Supp. 2d 883 (S.D. Ohio 1999). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1903 (1). Franchise fees exclude, inter alia, “[t]he purchase or agreement to purchase goods, equipment, or fixtures directly or on consignment at a bona fide wholesale price.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, 67 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Mich. 1999). “1902(b) of the Act defines “misappropriation” as: (i) 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 (ii) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied…”
Nagel Precision Inc. v. RnD Eng'g, LLC (In re RnD Eng'g, LLC), 546 B.R. 738 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2016). “The sole legal authority cited by Nagel in support of this injunctive relief is MUTSA § 445.1903, which authorizes the granting of injunctive relief under certain circumstances.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1903(1) — 7 cases
CMI Int'l, Inc. v. Intermet Int'l Corp., 649 N.W.2d 808 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “No Michigan case has interpreted the statutory provision concerning threatened misappropriation, MCL 445.1903. Even assuming that the concept of “threatened misappropriation” of trade secrets encompasses a concept of inevitable disclosure, that concept must not compromise the…”
Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Noretto, 495 F. Supp. 2d 645 (E.D. Mich. 2007). “§ 445.1903(1); CMI Int’l., Inc. v. Intermet Int’l Corp.”
Kelly Servs., Inc. v. Marzullo, 591 F. Supp. 2d 924 (E.D. Mich. 2008). “However, Kelly anticipates that given Marzullo’s position with one of its competitors, it is inevitable that Marzullo will use or disclose Kelly’s confidential information and trade secrets.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, 67 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Mich. 1999). “1902(b) of the Act defines “misappropriation” as: (i) 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 (ii) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied…”
Quick Draw Tarpaulin Sys. Inc v. Glider Sys. of Michigan LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
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.