Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 445 / Act 448 of 1998
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1904 (2026)

Misappropriation; recovery of damages.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 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


445.1904 Misappropriation; recovery of damages.

Sec. 4.

    Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders a monetary recovery inequitable, a complainant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret.

History: 1998, Act 448, Imd. Eff. Dec. 30, 1998

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Custom Nutrition Labs., LLC, 912 F.3d 316 (6th Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Custom Nutrition Labs., LLC, 912 F.3d 316 (6th Cir. 2018). “"); Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1904 ("[T]he damages caused by misappropriation [of trade secrets] may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, 67 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Mich. 1999). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.1904 . 7 . The First Amendment applies to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Synergeering Grp., LLC v. Jonatzke (In re Jonatzke), 478 B.R. 846 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 3× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.1904 provides for the recovery of damages for misappropriation of trade secrets under MUT-SA as follows: Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders…”
Prudential Def. Solutions Inc. v. Graham, 498 F. Supp. 3d 928 (E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 4× “§ 1836 (b)(1), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, silent fraud, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business expectancy, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.”
Prudential Def. Solutions Inc. v. Graham, No. 3:20-cv-11785 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 29, 2020). · cites it 2× “15, PageID.247-60.) It alleges Defendant Jake W. Graham was Plaintiff’s vice president and signed a non-compete agreement but worked with Defendants Mark Sheahan and Robert Charnot, two nonemployees, to establish a competing private security company.”
Prudential Def. Solutions Inc. v. Graham, No. 3:20-cv-11785 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2021). · cites it 2× “, a private security and mobile patrol service company, brings this action asserting claims under the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“MUTSA”), Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1904 , and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.”
Gen-Wealth Inc v. Brian a Freckman, No. 353584 (Mich. Ct. App. May 13, 2021). “” MCL 445.1904. In the absence of other reasonable measures, “the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator’s unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret.”
Fraser Engine Rebuilder Inc v. Kenneth Allen Lancaster, No. 360110 (Mich. Ct. App. June 8, 2023). “2919a(1)(b) against -3- Kenneth, Carol, and Ben related to “receiv[ing] funds from E&T which each of them knew to have [been] obtained under fraudulent pretenses”; and (6) misappropriation of trade secrets under MCL 445.1904. According to the trial court, the allegations in the…”
Ford Motor Co. v. Intermotive, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-11584 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2023). “§ 445.1904). As discussed above, the damages provision provides that a plaintiff may recover “unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation.”
Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 176 F.4th 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2026). “FORD MOTOR COMPANY Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1904 (emphasis added).”
Polytorx LLC v. Regents of Univ. of Michigan, No. 318151 (Mich. Ct. App. May 7, 2015). “Therefore, to satisfy the one-year notice provision, this claim could not accrue earlier than August 28, 2012.”
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.