Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702 (2026)
Part definitions
✓ current as of May 2026
As used in this part, unless the context requires otherwise:
- (1) "Improper means" includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy or limit use, or espionage through electronic or other means;
- (2) "Misappropriation" means:
- (A) 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
- (B) Disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who:
- (i) Used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
- (ii) At the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that that person's knowledge of the trade secret was:
- (a) Derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
- (b) Acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
- (c) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
- (iii) Before a material change of the person's 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) "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;
- (4) "Trade secret" means information, without regard to form, including, but not limited to, technical, nontechnical or financial data, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, or plan that:
- (A) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
- (B) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Acts 2000, ch. 647, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Tenn. 2004).
Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Tenn. 2004). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702 (1) and (2) (defining “misappropriation” of a trade secret).”
Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 2d 808 (E.D. Tenn. 2005). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1). As to the first element of its USTA claim (ie.”
Wachter, Inc. v. Cabling Innovations, LLC, 387 F. Supp. 3d 830 (M.D. Tenn. 2019). “In Hamilton-Ryker , the Tennessee Court of Appeals explained the evolution of the definition of "trade secret" under Tennessee law: Under the common law, a trade secret was defined as any formula, process, pattern, device or compilation of information that is used in one's…”
Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams, 582 F. Supp. 2d 967 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). “” T.C.A. § 47-25-1702(2). Clearly, just from this one example, if the matter Adams found in Young's e-mail box and passed on to Townsend/Music City was determined to be a trade secret, a reasonable jury could find, as to all defendants, that the trade secret had been…”
Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. v. Arhaus, LLC, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1) et seq. The “TUT-SA lists three requirements for information to be considered a trade secret: (1) the information must derive independent economic value from not being generally known, (2) others could obtain economic value from its disclosure…”
Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. v. Arhaus, LLC, 304 F.R.D. 520 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1) et seq. (West 2014).”
Productivemd, LLC v. 4umd, LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 955 (M.D. Tenn. 2011). “Defendants cite no cases that indicate a plaintiff must additionally plead the specific efforts it undertook to ensure secrecy. It would be superfluous to include this as an additional element because, by definition, a trade secret requires reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.”
RN Entm't, LLC v. Clement, 380 F. Supp. 3d 711 (M.D. Tenn. 2019). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702 (4). The Sixth Circuit has identified several factors to consider in determining whether something constitutes a "trade secret" under this definition, including "the extent of public knowledge; measures taken to guard its secrecy; the value of the…”
Yoe v. Crescent Sock Co., 314 F. Supp. 3d 892 (E.D. Tenn. 2018). “stances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (c) Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) Before a material change of the person's position, knew or had reason…”
Mfg. Repair & Overstock, Inc. v. Kasinger, No. 1:24-cv-00268 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 25, 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702 (4). Both the TUTSA and the DTSA treat the use of a trade secret by a person who knew or had reason to know that the trade secret had been acquired by improper means as misappropriation.”
Rezult Grp., Inc., The v. Turkheimer, No. 3:22-cv-00567 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 13, 2023). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702 (4); see also Fla.”
Allergan, Inc. v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00431 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 3, 2024). “§ 1839 (5); Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702 (2). “Improper means” includes “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means; and does not include .”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1): 6 cases
Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Tenn. 2004). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702 (1) and (2) (defining “misappropriation” of a trade secret).”
Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. v. Arhaus, LLC, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1) et seq. The “TUT-SA lists three requirements for information to be considered a trade secret: (1) the information must derive independent economic value from not being generally known, (2) others could obtain economic value from its disclosure…”
Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 2d 808 (E.D. Tenn. 2005). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1). As to the first element of its USTA claim (ie.”
Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. v. Arhaus, LLC, 304 F.R.D. 520 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1) et seq. (West 2014).”
Knox Trailers, Inc v. Clark, No. 3:20-cv-00137 (E.D. Tenn. May 21, 2021).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(2): 9 cases
Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Tenn. 2004). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702 (1) and (2) (defining “misappropriation” of a trade secret).”
Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams, 582 F. Supp. 2d 967 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). “” T.C.A. § 47-25-1702(2). Clearly, just from this one example, if the matter Adams found in Young's e-mail box and passed on to Townsend/Music City was determined to be a trade secret, a reasonable jury could find, as to all defendants, that the trade secret had been…”
Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 2d 808 (E.D. Tenn. 2005). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1). As to the first element of its USTA claim (ie.”
Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. v. Arhaus, LLC, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1) et seq. The “TUT-SA lists three requirements for information to be considered a trade secret: (1) the information must derive independent economic value from not being generally known, (2) others could obtain economic value from its disclosure…”
Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. v. Arhaus, LLC, 304 F.R.D. 520 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1) et seq. (West 2014).”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(2)(A): 1 case
The Hamilton-Ryker Grp., LLC v. Tammy L. Keymon, No. W2008-00936-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2010).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(2)(B): 2 cases
Strobos v. Rxbio, Inc., 251 F. Supp. 3d 221 (D.D.C. 2017).
Jet Packaging Grp., LLC v. Votaw, No. 3:24-cv-00787 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 27, 2024).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(2)(B)(ii)(c): 1 case
Allergan, Inc. v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00431 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 3, 2024). “§ 1839 (5); Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702 (2). “Improper means” includes “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means; and does not include .”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(4): 7 cases
Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams, 582 F. Supp. 2d 967 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). “” T.C.A. § 47-25-1702(2). Clearly, just from this one example, if the matter Adams found in Young's e-mail box and passed on to Townsend/Music City was determined to be a trade secret, a reasonable jury could find, as to all defendants, that the trade secret had been…”
Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 376 F. Supp. 2d 808 (E.D. Tenn. 2005). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1). As to the first element of its USTA claim (ie.”
Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. v. Arhaus, LLC, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1) et seq. The “TUT-SA lists three requirements for information to be considered a trade secret: (1) the information must derive independent economic value from not being generally known, (2) others could obtain economic value from its disclosure…”
Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. v. Arhaus, LLC, 304 F.R.D. 520 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1) et seq. (West 2014).”
The Hamilton-Ryker Grp., LLC v. Tammy L. Keymon, No. W2008-00936-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2010).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(4)(B): 1 case
Productivemd, LLC v. 4umd, LLC, 821 F. Supp. 2d 955 (M.D. Tenn. 2011). “Defendants cite no cases that indicate a plaintiff must additionally plead the specific efforts it undertook to ensure secrecy. It would be superfluous to include this as an additional element because, by definition, a trade secret requires reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(l)(a): 1 case
Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc. v. Arhaus, LLC, 304 F.R.D. 520 (W.D. Tenn. 2015). “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1702(1) et seq. (West 2014).”
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.