Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1905 (2026)

Award of attorney's fees.

✓ 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


445.1905 Award of attorney's fees.

Sec. 5.

    If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Degussa Admixtures, Inc. v. Burnett, 471 F. Supp. 2d 848 (W.D. Mich. 2007).
Degussa Admixtures, Inc. v. Burnett, 471 F. Supp. 2d 848 (W.D. Mich. 2007). · cites it 12× “11, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1905 , and 28 U.S.”
Synergeering Grp., LLC v. Jonatzke (In re Jonatzke), 478 B.R. 846 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 29× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.1905 provides that “the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party” if a “willful and malicious misappropriation [of a trade secret] exists.”
Degussa Admixtures, Inc. v. Douglas Burnett & Sika Corp., 277 F. App'x 530 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1905 . *533 This provision amounts to a substantive rule under Eñe, requiring federal courts to apply it in a diversity case.”
Christopher Ridgeway v. Stryker Corp., 973 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1905 . The Michigan district court entered judgment in Stryker’s favor on March 9, 2016.”
McKesson Med.-Surgical, Inc. v. Micro Bio-Medics, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 2d 590 (E.D. Mich. 2003). “§ 445.1905, which provides “[i]f a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.”
Nagel Precision Inc. v. RnD Eng'g, LLC (In re RnD Eng'g, LLC), 546 B.R. 738 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “Nagel’s sole authority in support of this request is MUTSA § 445.1905, which authorizes a court to “award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.”
Baker Hughes, Inc. v. S & S Chem., LLC, 63 F. Supp. 3d 762 (W.D. Mich. 2014). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1905 . Defendants have not objected at this stage to Plaintiffs’ assertion of willful and malicious misappropriation.”
Autokiniton US Holdings Inc v. Michael Gibbs (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “Autokiniton’s complaint contained four counts and only one involved a claim of misappropriation of trade secrets under the UTSA. This misappropriation claim was brought against Ruzzin and Gibbs, not Challenge.”
Ford Motor Co. v. Intermotive, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2025). · cites it 4× “§ 445.1905. The MUTSA defines “misappropriation” as either: (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.”
Quick Draw Tarpaulin Sys. Inc v. Glider Sys. of Michigan LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “Defendants argued that they were entitled to attorney fees under MCL 445.1905 and MCL 600.2591. With respect to their claim under MCL 600.”
Raymond v. Renew Therapeutic Massage, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 3× “Raymond asks this Court to make a bad- faith determination under Michigan Complied Laws § 445.1905. (Pl.’s MSJ, ECF No. 34 at Pg ID 550-53.”
Best Value Auto Parts Distributors, Inc. v. Quality Collision Parts, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 1836 , and Michigan Trade Secrets Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1905 ; improper access to electronic information in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.”
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.