Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 325C. UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 325C.02 (2026)

Injunctive Relief

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. 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 commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the 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 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: Katch, LLC v. Sweetser, 143 F. Supp. 3d 854 (D. Minnesota 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Katch, LLC v. Sweetser, 143 F. Supp. 3d 854 (D. Minnesota 2015). · cites it 3× “, 2002 WL 1634334 at *4 (citing Minn. Stat. § 325C.02). However, the potential disclosure of information which is either stale, or soon to be publicly exposed, does not constitute irreparable harm.”
Prime Therapeutics LLC v. Beatty, 354 F. Supp. 3d 957 (D. Me. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 1836 (b)(3)(A) ; Minn. Stat. § 325C.02 ; Equus Comput. Sys.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. WMR E-Pin, LLC, 653 F.3d 702 (8th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 325C.02. According to appellants, because the DIXE Software entered the public domain via Wells Fargo's patent application, it ceased to exist as a trade secret and the district court abused its discretion in refusing to terminate the injunction.”
Wyeth v. Nat. Biologics, Inc., 395 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “Minn.Stat. § 325C.02. We review the court’s grant of injunctive relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Prime Therapeutics LLC v. Beatty (D. Minnesota 2018). · cites it 4× “§ 1836 (b)(3)(A); Minn. Stat. § 325C.02; Equus Comput. Sys.”
Prairie Field Servs., LLC v. Welsh (D. Minnesota 2020). · cites it 3× “§ 1836 (b), and the MUTSA, Minn. Stat. § 325C.02–.03. To prevail under either statute, Prairie must show that it had one or more “trade secret[s]” and that the Immense Defendants “misappropriat[ed]” them.”
Waxing the City Franchisor LLC v. Katularu (D. Minnesota 2024). · cites it 3× “” Minn. Stat. § 325C.02(a). The Court cannot conclude, on the record before it, that Katz is relying on the Cerology training information or the contents of the Operations Manual in the operation of Wild Honey.”
MPAY Inc. v. Erie Custom Comput. Applications, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2019). · cites it 2× “1986); see also Minn. Stat. § 325C.02(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (b)(3) (providing for an injunction against the “actual or threatened misappropriation” of trade secrets).”
Syngenta Seeds, LLC v. Warner (D. Minnesota 2021). · cites it 2× “If Minnesota law applies, then Syngenta’s state statutory claim for misappropriation of trade secrets will be governed by the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“MUTSA”), Minn. Stat. §§ 325C.02–.03. That statute contains a provision that “displace[s] conflicting tort,…”
Ecolab Inc. v. IBA, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2023). · cites it 2× “¶¶ 54–73; and a misappropriation claim under the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 325C.02–.04 (Count III), id.”
Wyeth v. Nat. Biologics (8th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “Minn. Stat. § 325C.02. We review the court’s grant of injunctive relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. WMR e-PIN, LLC (8th Cir. 2011). “Minn. Stat. § 325C.02. According to appellants, because the DIXE Software entered the public domain via Wells Fargo’s patent application, it ceased to exist as a trade -20- secret and the district court abused its discretion in refusing to terminate the injunction.”
— Minn. Stat. § 325C.02(a) — 7 cases
Prime Therapeutics LLC v. Beatty, 354 F. Supp. 3d 957 (D. Me. 2018). “§ 1836 (b)(3)(A) ; Minn. Stat. § 325C.02 ; Equus Comput. Sys.”
Katch, LLC v. Sweetser, 143 F. Supp. 3d 854 (D. Minnesota 2015). “, 2002 WL 1634334 at *4 (citing Minn. Stat. § 325C.02). However, the potential disclosure of information which is either stale, or soon to be publicly exposed, does not constitute irreparable harm.”
Wyeth v. Nat. Biologics, Inc., 395 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2005). “Minn.Stat. § 325C.02. We review the court’s grant of injunctive relief for an abuse of discretion.”
Waxing the City Franchisor LLC v. Katularu (D. Minnesota 2024). “” Minn. Stat. § 325C.02(a). The Court cannot conclude, on the record before it, that Katz is relying on the Cerology training information or the contents of the Operations Manual in the operation of Wild Honey.”
Prime Therapeutics LLC v. Beatty (D. Minnesota 2018). “§ 1836 (b)(3)(A); Minn. Stat. § 325C.02; Equus Comput. Sys.”
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.