Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 325C.06 (2026)

Statute Of Limitations

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

An action for misappropriation must be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. For the purposes of this section, a continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · leading case: Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 576 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (D. Minnesota 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 576 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (D. Minnesota 2008). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 325C.06. The statute of limitations in each state embodies, in identical language, the discovery rule.”

Cygnus Telecomm. Tech., LLC v. Telesys Commc'ns, LLC, 536 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Minn.Stat. § 325C.06. Under Minnesota law, the statute of limitations begins to run once a lawsuit could survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

Chasteen v. Unisia Jecs Corp., 216 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2000). “See Minn.Stat. § 325C.06; Colo.Rev. Stat. § 7-74-107.”

Wyeth v. Nat. Biologics, Inc., 395 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2005). “” Minn.Stat. § 325C.06 (2000). Natural Biologies argues that Wyeth should have discovered its claim before November 17, 1995, more than three years prior to the commencement of the action.”

Schwan's Co. v. Cai (D. Minnesota 2021). · cites it 6× “§ 1836 (d); Minn. Stat. § 325C.06. For both, the statute of limitations begins once the misappropriation of the trade secret “is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.”

Excel Mfg., Inc. v. Todd Wondrow (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 325C.06 (2014), states: “An action for misappropriation must be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.”

Nova Oculus Partners, LLC v. Amerivision Int'l, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 1836 (d); Minn. Stat. § 325C.06. Defendants claim that, as of December 2013, when Acuity terminated Mowery and Masko’s employment contracts, Acuity knew that these individuals possessed Acuity’s trade secrets.”

Wyeth v. Nat. Biologics (8th Cir. 2005). “” Minn. Stat. § 325C.06 (2000). Natural Biologics argues that Wyeth should have discovered its claim before November 17, 1995, more than three years prior to the commencement of the action.”

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.