Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 325C.03 (2026)

Damages

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

(a) 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.

(b) If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under paragraph (a).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: Zawels v. Edutronics, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
Zawels v. Edutronics, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 20× “Minn.Stat. § 325C.03(a) (1990) provides that a plaintiff may recover damages for misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 870 F. Supp. 1499 (D. Minnesota 1994). · cites it 6× “The magistrate judge granted the motion of American for leave to amend the pleadings to seek punitive damages on its claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Minn. Stat. § 325C.03, and for tortious interference with employee…”
CardioVention, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 483 F. Supp. 2d 830 (D. Minnesota 2007). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 325C.03(a). Although unjust enrichment is typically measured by profits gained from the sale of the product containing the trade secret, courts have considered cost savings and increased productivity resulting from use of the trade secret.”
Prime Therapeutics LLC v. Beatty, 354 F. Supp. 3d 957 (D. Me. 2018). “But the Court determined already that Prime has not shown a likelihood of inevitable disclosure.”
Aries Info. Sys., Inc. v. Pac. Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 366 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 325C.03 (1984). The trial court based the compensatory damages on the revenues gained by Pacific during the period of misappropriation and on the revenues which Aries lost because its clients were diverted to Pacific.”
Backlund v. City of Duluth, 176 F.R.D. 316 (D. Minnesota 1997). · cites it 4× “The plain language of Minn.Stat. § 325C.03(b) shows that the legislature did not intend the requirements of Minn.”
Ahle v. Veracity Rsch. Co., 641 F. Supp. 2d 857 (D. Minnesota 2009). “” Minn.Stat. 325C.03(a). As Plaintiffs correctly argue, however, to the extent that there is overlap in the amount claimed as harm caused to Veracity (or benefit realized by Ahle and Wiseman) stemming from by the alleged breach of the noncompete and that stemming from the…”
Child.'s Broad. Corp. v. The Walt Disney Co., 245 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2001). “" Minn. Stat. 325C.03(a) (1998). 22 The district court found that the only damages evidence offered by Children's was Willis's testimony.”
Child.'s Broad. Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., 245 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2001). “” Minn.Stat. § 325C.03(a) (1998). The district court found that the only damages evidence offered by Children’s was Willis’s testimony.”
Child.'s Broad. Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., 357 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2004). “” Minn.Stat. Ann. § 325C.03(b). Also, if “willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.”
Prime Therapeutics LLC v. Beatty (D. Minnesota 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 1836 (b)(3)(B); Minn. Stat. § 325C.03(a). Prime has not established that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm.”
Protege Biomedical, LLC v. Z-Medica, LLC (D. Minnesota 2019). · cites it 2× “” See Minn. Stat. § 325C.03; 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (b)(3).”
— Minn. Stat. § 325C.03(a) — 7 cases
CardioVention, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 483 F. Supp. 2d 830 (D. Minnesota 2007). “” Minn.Stat. § 325C.03(a). Although unjust enrichment is typically measured by profits gained from the sale of the product containing the trade secret, courts have considered cost savings and increased productivity resulting from use of the trade secret.”
Prime Therapeutics LLC v. Beatty, 354 F. Supp. 3d 957 (D. Me. 2018). “But the Court determined already that Prime has not shown a likelihood of inevitable disclosure.”
Zawels v. Edutronics, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). “Minn.Stat. § 325C.03(a) (1990) provides that a plaintiff may recover damages for misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Ahle v. Veracity Rsch. Co., 641 F. Supp. 2d 857 (D. Minnesota 2009). “” Minn.Stat. 325C.03(a). As Plaintiffs correctly argue, however, to the extent that there is overlap in the amount claimed as harm caused to Veracity (or benefit realized by Ahle and Wiseman) stemming from by the alleged breach of the noncompete and that stemming from the…”
Child.'s Broad. Corp. v. The Walt Disney Co., 245 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2001). “" Minn. Stat. 325C.03(a) (1998). 22 The district court found that the only damages evidence offered by Children's was Willis's testimony.”
— Minn. Stat. § 325C.03(b) — 3 cases
Zawels v. Edutronics, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). “Minn.Stat. § 325C.03(a) (1990) provides that a plaintiff may recover damages for misappropriation of trade secrets.”
Backlund v. City of Duluth, 176 F.R.D. 316 (D. Minnesota 1997). “The plain language of Minn.Stat. § 325C.03(b) shows that the legislature did not intend the requirements of Minn.”
Child.'s Broad. Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., 357 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2004). “” Minn.Stat. Ann. § 325C.03(b). Also, if “willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.”
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.