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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1908 (2026)

Other laws and remedies; effect.

✓ 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


445.1908 Other laws and remedies; effect.

Sec. 8.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), this act displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.

    (2) This act does not affect any of the following:

    (a) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.

    (b) Other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.

    (c) Criminal remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. v. Furstenau, 368 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (E.D. Mich. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. v. Furstenau, 368 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (E.D. Mich. 2019). · cites it 6× “45-49, 74-75.) B. Likelihood of Success on Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim (Count II of the Complaint, ECF # 1, PgID 18) Count II against Furstenau for breach of fiduciary duty is likely to be displaced by MUTSA.”
Am. Furukawa, Inc. v. Hossain, 103 F. Supp. 3d 864 (E.D. Mich. 2015). · cites it 6× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1908 (1); Wysong Corp.”
Wysong Corp. v. M.I. Indus., 412 F. Supp. 2d 612 (E.D. Mich. 2005). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1908 . The plaintiff contends that its other claims are independent of the misappropriation claims under the MUTSA: the claim for breach of fiduciary duty includes an allegation that the defendants improperly failed to disclose the formation of an entity…”
Delphi Auto. PLC v. Absmeier, 167 F. Supp. 3d 868 (E.D. Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1908 (1); Wysong Corp.”
Ajuba Int'l, L.L.C. v. Saharia, 871 F. Supp. 2d 671 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 2× “*691 Ah a threshold matter, the Court notes that the Michigan Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“MUTSA”) governs the contours of Plaintiffs’ misappropriation claim because the MUTSA “displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for…”
Bliss Clearing Niagara, Inc. v. Midwest Brake Bond Co., 270 F. Supp. 2d 943 (W.D. Mich. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 445.1908(2). No Michigan state or federal court has interpreted or applied the displacement provision of MUTSA, although several state and federal courts have interpreted very similar versions of the UTSA adopted by other states.”
Appalachian Railcar Servs., Inc. v. Boatright Enter., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 829 (W.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 445.1908(1), which provides, “this act displaces conflicting tort, restitution-ary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret .”
CMI Int'l, Inc. v. Intermet Int'l Corp., 649 N.W.2d 808 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “Thus, plaintiff failed to sufficiently demonstrate specific acts corroborating that Ruff’s purpose was unlawful. Summary disposition was appropriate. CMI’s remaining claims necessarily are based on Michigan’s UTSA, because that statute displaced conflicting tort remedies for…”
Compuware Corp. v. Serena Software Int'l, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 816 (E.D. Mich. 1999). · cites it 2× “In 1998, the Michigan legislature adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1901 — .1910, in an effort "to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this act among the states enacting it.”
Dura Global Tech., Inc. v. Magna Donnelly Corp., 662 F. Supp. 2d 855 (E.D. Mich. 2009). “§ 445.1908(1); see also CMI Int’l, Inc. v.”
McKesson Med.-Surgical, Inc. v. Micro Bio-Medics, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 2d 590 (E.D. Mich. 2003). “The MUTSA provides that “this act displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret[,]” and also that “[t]his act does not affect .”
Rockwell Med., Inc. v. Yocum, 76 F. Supp. 3d 636 (E.D. Mich. 2014). · cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1908 ; CMI Int’l, Inc.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1908(1): 5 cases
Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. v. Furstenau, 368 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (E.D. Mich. 2019). “45-49, 74-75.) B. Likelihood of Success on Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim (Count II of the Complaint, ECF # 1, PgID 18) Count II against Furstenau for breach of fiduciary duty is likely to be displaced by MUTSA.”
Appalachian Railcar Servs., Inc. v. Boatright Enter., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 829 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “§ 445.1908(1), which provides, “this act displaces conflicting tort, restitution-ary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret .”
Dura Global Tech., Inc. v. Magna Donnelly Corp., 662 F. Supp. 2d 855 (E.D. Mich. 2009). “§ 445.1908(1); see also CMI Int’l, Inc. v.”
Nagel Precision Inc. v. RnD Eng'g, LLC (In re RnD Eng'g, LLC), 546 B.R. 738 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2016).
Belding, No. 1:25-cv-01282 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 25, 2025).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1908(2): 3 cases
Bliss Clearing Niagara, Inc. v. Midwest Brake Bond Co., 270 F. Supp. 2d 943 (W.D. Mich. 2003). “§ 445.1908(2). No Michigan state or federal court has interpreted or applied the displacement provision of MUTSA, although several state and federal courts have interpreted very similar versions of the UTSA adopted by other states.”
Appalachian Railcar Servs., Inc. v. Boatright Enter., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 829 (W.D. Mich. 2008). “§ 445.1908(1), which provides, “this act displaces conflicting tort, restitution-ary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret .”
Nagel Precision Inc. v. RnD Eng'g, LLC (In re RnD Eng'g, LLC), 546 B.R. 738 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2016).
Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1908(2)(a): 1 case
Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. v. Furstenau, 368 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (E.D. Mich. 2019). “45-49, 74-75.) B. Likelihood of Success on Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim (Count II of the Complaint, ECF # 1, PgID 18) Count II against Furstenau for breach of fiduciary duty is likely to be displaced by MUTSA.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1908(a): 1 case
Bliss Clearing Niagara, Inc. v. Midwest Brake Bond Co., 270 F. Supp. 2d 943 (W.D. Mich. 2003). “§ 445.1908(2). No Michigan state or federal court has interpreted or applied the displacement provision of MUTSA, although several state and federal courts have interpreted very similar versions of the UTSA adopted by other states.”
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.