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

Minn. Stat. § 325C.07 (2026)

Effect On Other Law

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
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. Minn. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Micro Display Sys., Inc. v. Axtel, Inc., 699 F. Supp. 202 (D. Minn. 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. Minn. 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. Minn. 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., 413 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (D. Minn. 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.”
Gilk, No. 0:25-cv-02158 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 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., No. 0:22-cv-00254 (D. Minn. Nov. 22, 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., No. A14-186 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 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, No. 0:18-cv-03227 (D. Minn. July 24, 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, No. 0:20-cv-02157 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 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. Minn. 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. Minn. 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. Minn. 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., 413 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (D. Minn. 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. Minn. 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. Minn. 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, No. 0:18-cv-03227 (D. Minn. July 24, 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,…”
Gilk, No. 0:25-cv-02158 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 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
Gilk, No. 0:25-cv-02158 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 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., No. 0:22-cv-00254 (D. Minn. Nov. 22, 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, No. 0:20-cv-02157 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 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.