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

Minn. Stat. § 325C.07 (2026)

Effect On Other Law

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

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), sections 325C.01 to 325C.07 displace conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.

(b) Sections 325C.01 to 325C.07 do not affect:

(1) contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret;

(2) other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Micro Display Sys., Inc. v. Axtel, Inc., 699 F. Supp. 202 (D. Minnesota 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Micro Display Sys., Inc. v. Axtel, Inc., 699 F. Supp. 202 (D. Minnesota 1988). · cites it 12× “Section 325C.07 of the MUTSA states that: Sections 325C.”
Superior Edge, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (D. Minnesota 2013). · cites it 3× “” Minn.Stat. § 325C.07(a). MUTSA does not, however, affect contractual remedies, other civil remedies not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or criminal remedies.”
Hagen v. Burmeister & Assocs., Inc., 633 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. 2001). · cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 325C.07(a) (2000). We have not had the opportunity to interpret the meaning of section 325C.”
SL Montevideo Tech., Inc. v. Eaton Aerospace, LLC, 292 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Minnesota 2003). · cites it 3× “” Minn.Stat. § 325C.07(a). The Act does not, however, affect contractual remedies, other civil remedies not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or criminal remedies.”
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. Aspen II Holding Co., Inc., 413 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (D. Minnesota 2006). · cites it 2× “Second, the MUTSA does not displace Guidant’s tortious interference claim. The MUTSA states that it “displaced] conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Sioux Biochemical, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 785 (N.D. Iowa 2005). “550; and compare Minn.Stat. § 325C.07(a). Thus, the Iowa version of the Act does not expressly preempt Sioux Biochemical’s common-law misappropriation claim.”
Zawels v. Edutronics, Inc., 520 N.W.2d 520 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 325C.07(a) (1990). Minn.Stat.”
Daniel Gilk & Samuel Gilk, each individually & derivatively on behalf of Fly Boatworks, LLC v. Mark L. Fisher, Errol (D. Minn. 2026). · cites it 9× “” Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(a). However, the MUTSA does not affect contractual remedies or civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
ImageTrend, Inc. v. Locality Media, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2022). · cites it 4× “” Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(a). MUTSA does not displace contractual claims or civil remedies that are not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Rotary Sys., Inc. v. TomoTherapy Inc., Dynamic Sealing Tech., Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “SON, Judge Appellant challenges the summary-judgment dismissal of its trade-secret and related claims, asserting that the district court erred by (1) determining as a matter of law that appellant could not establish the existence of trade secrets because it did not take…”
Protege Biomedical, LLC v. Z-Medica, LLC (D. Minnesota 2019). · cites it 3× “Counts IV and V–Unjust Enrichment and Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage The Court must next determine whether, as Z-Medica argues, Protégé’s remaining common law claims are displaced by the MUTSA. The MUTSA “displace[s] conflicting tort, restitutionary,…”
Schwan's Co. v. Cai (D. Minnesota 2021). · cites it 3× “” Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(a). MUTSA, however, does not displace “other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(a) — 15 cases
Hagen v. Burmeister & Assocs., Inc., 633 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. 2001). “” Minn.Stat. § 325C.07(a) (2000). We have not had the opportunity to interpret the meaning of section 325C.”
Superior Edge, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (D. Minnesota 2013). “” Minn.Stat. § 325C.07(a). MUTSA does not, however, affect contractual remedies, other civil remedies not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or criminal remedies.”
Micro Display Sys., Inc. v. Axtel, Inc., 699 F. Supp. 202 (D. Minnesota 1988). “Section 325C.07 of the MUTSA states that: Sections 325C.”
SL Montevideo Tech., Inc. v. Eaton Aerospace, LLC, 292 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Minnesota 2003). “” Minn.Stat. § 325C.07(a). The Act does not, however, affect contractual remedies, other civil remedies not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or criminal remedies.”
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. Aspen II Holding Co., Inc., 413 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (D. Minnesota 2006). “Second, the MUTSA does not displace Guidant’s tortious interference claim. The MUTSA states that it “displaced] conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.”
— Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(b) — 4 cases
Superior Edge, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (D. Minnesota 2013). “” Minn.Stat. § 325C.07(a). MUTSA does not, however, affect contractual remedies, other civil remedies not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or criminal remedies.”
SL Montevideo Tech., Inc. v. Eaton Aerospace, LLC, 292 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Minnesota 2003). “” Minn.Stat. § 325C.07(a). The Act does not, however, affect contractual remedies, other civil remedies not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret, or criminal remedies.”
Protege Biomedical, LLC v. Z-Medica, LLC (D. Minnesota 2019). “Counts IV and V–Unjust Enrichment and Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage The Court must next determine whether, as Z-Medica argues, Protégé’s remaining common law claims are displaced by the MUTSA. The MUTSA “displace[s] conflicting tort, restitutionary,…”
Daniel Gilk & Samuel Gilk, each individually & derivatively on behalf of Fly Boatworks, LLC v. Mark L. Fisher, Errol (D. Minn. 2026). “” Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(a). However, the MUTSA does not affect contractual remedies or civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
— Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(b)(1) — 2 cases
Daniel Gilk & Samuel Gilk, each individually & derivatively on behalf of Fly Boatworks, LLC v. Mark L. Fisher, Errol (D. Minn. 2026). “” Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(a). However, the MUTSA does not affect contractual remedies or civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
ImageTrend, Inc. v. Locality Media, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2022). “” Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(a). MUTSA does not displace contractual claims or civil remedies that are not based on misappropriation of a trade secret.”
— Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(b)(2) — 1 case
Schwan's Co. v. Cai (D. Minnesota 2021). “” Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(a). MUTSA, however, does not displace “other civil remedies that are not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
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.