NRS
600A.030 Definitions. As
used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. “Improper means” includes, without
limitation:
(a) Theft;
(b) Bribery;
(c) Misrepresentation;
(d) Willful breach or willful inducement of a
breach of a duty to maintain secrecy;
(e) Willful breach or willful inducement of a
breach of a duty imposed by common law, statute, contract, license, protective
order or other court or administrative order; and
(f) Espionage through electronic or other means.
2. “Misappropriation” means:
(a) Acquisition of the trade secret of another by
a person by improper means;
(b) Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a
person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by
improper means; or
(c) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of
another without express or implied consent by a person who:
(1) Used improper means to acquire
knowledge of the trade secret;
(2) At the time of disclosure or use, knew
or had reason to know that his or her knowledge of the trade secret was:
(I) Derived from or through a person
who had used improper means to acquire it;
(II) Acquired under circumstances
giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(III) Derived from or through a
person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or
limit its use; or
(3) Before a material change of his or her
position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that
knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
3. “Owner” means the person who holds
legal or equitable title to a trade secret.
4. “Person” means a natural person,
corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, joint
venture, government, governmental subdivision or agency, or any other legal or
commercial entity.
5. “Trade secret”:
(a) Means information, including, without
limitation, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique,
product, system, process, design, prototype, procedure, computer programming
instruction or code that:
(1) Derives independent economic value,
actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily
ascertainable by proper means by the public or any other persons who can obtain
commercial or economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(2) Is the subject of efforts that are
reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
(b) Does not include any information that a
manufacturer is required to report pursuant to NRS 439B.635 or 439B.640, information that a
pharmaceutical sales representative is required to report pursuant to NRS 439B.660, information that a pharmacy
benefit manager is required to report pursuant to NRS 439B.645 or information that a
wholesaler is required to report pursuant to NRS 439B.642, to the extent that such
information is required to be disclosed by those sections.
(Added to NRS by 1987,
20; A 1993,
2802; 1999,
2101; 2017,
4306; 2021,
3730)
Notes of Decisions
Mei-Gsr Holdings, LLC v. Peppermill Casinos, Inc., 416 P.3d 249 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 13× “: Under Nevada's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (NTSA), NRS 600A.030 defines a "[t]rade secret" as information that "[d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from .”
V'Guara Inc. v. Dec, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. Nev. 2013).
· cites it 10× “Nev.Rev.Stat. § 600A.030(2)(c). Thus, a trade secret is misappropriated when, as here, a person discloses the secret information to another party without consent and when, as here, the disclosing party acquired the secret information under circumstances giving rise to a duty to…”
Frantz v. Johnson, 999 P.2d 351 (Nev. 2000).
· cites it 3× “1 , 19-20 (1981); see also NRS 600A.030(2) (defining misappropriation).”
Saini v. Int'l Game Tech., 434 F. Supp. 2d 913 (D. Nev. 2006).
“NRS 600A.030. There is no definition of “confidential” information under Nevada law, but Black’s Law Dictionary defines “confidential as [Entrusted with the confidence of another or with his secret affairs or purposes; intended to be held in confidence or kept secret; done in…”
Chemeon Surface Tech., LLC v. Metalast Int'l, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 3d 944 (D. Nev. 2018).
· cites it 4× “NRS § 600A.030(2) (emphasis added). While acquisition of a trade secret through improper means is a form of misappropriation, the supposed "threat" to misappropriate the AA-200 trade secret at the March 31 st hearing appears to be related to statements made by Semas's counsel…”
Finkel v. Cashman Prof'l, Inc., 270 P.3d 1259 (Nev. 2012).
“Broadly defined, a trade secret is information that “[d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by the public,’ ’ as well as information that “[i]s the subject of efforts that…”
Mei-gsr Holdings, LLC Vs. Peppermill Casinos, Inc., 2018 NV 31 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 22× “" In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether NRS 600A.030 precludes a defendant from demonstrating that certain information is readily ascertainable and not a trade secret even though the defendant acquired the information through improper means.”
Mei-gsr Holdings, LLC Vs. Peppermill Casinos, Inc., 2018 NV 31 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 22× “" In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether NRS 600A.030 precludes a defendant from demonstrating that certain information is readily ascertainable and not a trade secret even though the defendant acquired the information through improper means.”
Hutchison v. KFC Corp., 883 F. Supp. 517 (D. Nev. 1993).
· cites it 3× “, § 600A.030. “Misappropriation” means: (a) Acquisition of a trade secret of another person by a person who has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; (b) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person…”
Neal v. Griepentrog, 837 P.2d 432 (Nev. 1992).
· cites it 2× “325 and NRS Chapter 600A, we conclude that the information in the letters does not constitute a trade secret because it is not a “formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique or process” (or anything similar) as required under NRS 600A.030. 5 Further, we…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.030(1) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.030(2) — 9 cases
Frantz v. Johnson, 999 P.2d 351 (Nev. 2000).
“1 , 19-20 (1981); see also NRS 600A.030(2) (defining misappropriation).”
Chemeon Surface Tech., LLC v. Metalast Int'l, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 3d 944 (D. Nev. 2018).
“NRS § 600A.030(2) (emphasis added). While acquisition of a trade secret through improper means is a form of misappropriation, the supposed "threat" to misappropriate the AA-200 trade secret at the March 31 st hearing appears to be related to statements made by Semas's counsel…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.030(2)(a) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.030(2)(c) — 3 cases
V'Guara Inc. v. Dec, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. Nev. 2013).
“Nev.Rev.Stat. § 600A.030(2)(c). Thus, a trade secret is misappropriated when, as here, a person discloses the secret information to another party without consent and when, as here, the disclosing party acquired the secret information under circumstances giving rise to a duty to…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.030(2)(c)(2)(III) — 5 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.030(2)(c)(2)(ii) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.030(2)(c)(I) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.030(4) — 2 cases
Neal v. Griepentrog, 837 P.2d 432 (Nev. 1992).
“325 and NRS Chapter 600A, we conclude that the information in the letters does not constitute a trade secret because it is not a “formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique or process” (or anything similar) as required under NRS 600A.030. 5 Further, we…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.030(5) — 16 cases
Mei-Gsr Holdings, LLC v. Peppermill Casinos, Inc., 416 P.3d 249 (Nev. 2018).
“: Under Nevada's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (NTSA), NRS 600A.030 defines a "[t]rade secret" as information that "[d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from .”
Frantz v. Johnson, 999 P.2d 351 (Nev. 2000).
“1 , 19-20 (1981); see also NRS 600A.030(2) (defining misappropriation).”
V'Guara Inc. v. Dec, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. Nev. 2013).
“Nev.Rev.Stat. § 600A.030(2)(c). Thus, a trade secret is misappropriated when, as here, a person discloses the secret information to another party without consent and when, as here, the disclosing party acquired the secret information under circumstances giving rise to a duty to…”
Chemeon Surface Tech., LLC v. Metalast Int'l, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 3d 944 (D. Nev. 2018).
“NRS § 600A.030(2) (emphasis added). While acquisition of a trade secret through improper means is a form of misappropriation, the supposed "threat" to misappropriate the AA-200 trade secret at the March 31 st hearing appears to be related to statements made by Semas's counsel…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.030(5)(A) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.030(5)(a) — 3 cases
Mei-Gsr Holdings, LLC v. Peppermill Casinos, Inc., 416 P.3d 249 (Nev. 2018).
“: Under Nevada's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (NTSA), NRS 600A.030 defines a "[t]rade secret" as information that "[d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from .”
V'Guara Inc. v. Dec, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. Nev. 2013).
“Nev.Rev.Stat. § 600A.030(2)(c). Thus, a trade secret is misappropriated when, as here, a person discloses the secret information to another party without consent and when, as here, the disclosing party acquired the secret information under circumstances giving rise to a duty to…”
Finkel v. Cashman Prof'l, Inc., 270 P.3d 1259 (Nev. 2012).
“Broadly defined, a trade secret is information that “[d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by the public,’ ’ as well as information that “[i]s the subject of efforts that…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600A.030(5)(b) — 4 cases
V'Guara Inc. v. Dec, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. Nev. 2013).
“Nev.Rev.Stat. § 600A.030(2)(c). Thus, a trade secret is misappropriated when, as here, a person discloses the secret information to another party without consent and when, as here, the disclosing party acquired the secret information under circumstances giving rise to a duty to…”
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.