U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 90— PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS

18 U.S.C. § 1839

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this chapter—(1) the term “foreign instrumentality” means any agency, bureau, ministry, component, institution, association, or any legal, commercial, or business organization, corporation, firm, or entity that is substantially owned, controlled, sponsored, commanded, managed, or dominated by a foreign government;(2) the term “foreign agent” means any officer, employee, proxy, servant, delegate, or representative of a foreign government;(3) the term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if—(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and(B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information;(4) the term “owner”, with respect to a trade secret, means the person or entity in whom or in which rightful legal or equitable title to, or license in, the trade secret is reposed;(5) the term “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;(ii) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that the knowledge of the trade secret was—(I) derived from or through a person who had used improper means to acquire the trade secret;(II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain the secrecy of the trade secret or limit the use of the trade secret; or(III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain the secrecy of the trade secret or limit the use of the trade secret; or(iii) before a material change of the position of the person, knew or had reason to know that—(I) the trade secret was a trade secret; and(II) knowledge of the trade secret had been acquired by accident or mistake;(6) the term “improper means”—(A) includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means; and(B) does not include reverse engineering, independent derivation, or any other lawful means of acquisition; and(7) the term “Trademark Act of 1946” means the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes 11 So in original. The closing quotation marks probably should follow “purposes” instead of “ ‘Lanham Act’)”., approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) (commonly referred to as the ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ or the ‘Lanham Act’)” 1.(Added Pub. L. 104–294, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3490; amended Pub. L. 114–153, § 2(b), May 11, 2016, 130 Stat. 380.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Trademark Act of 1946, referred to in par. (7), is act July 5, 1946, ch. 540, 60 Stat. 427, also popularly known as the Lanham Act, which is classified generally to chapter 22 (§ 1051 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1051 of Title 15 and Tables.

Amendments

2016—Par. (3)(B). Pub. L. 114–153, § 2(b)(1)(A), substituted “another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information” for “the public”.

Pars. (5) to (7). Pub. L. 114–153, § 2(b)(1)(B)–(3), added pars. (5) to (7).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–153 applicable with respect to any misappropriation of a trade secret (as defined in this section) for which any act occurs on or after May 11, 2016, see section 2(e) of Pub. L. 114–153, set out as a note under section 1833 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,046 cases (778 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Oakwood Labs. LLC v. Bagavathikanun Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892 (3rd Cir. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oakwood Labs. LLC v. Bagavathikanun Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892 (3rd Cir. 2021). · cites it 5× “11 The DTSA requires a plaintiff to demonstrate (1) the existence of a trade secret, defined generally as information with independent economic value that the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep secret, 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (3); (2) that “is related to a product or service…”
Bombardier Inc. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 11× “Compare 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (5), with RCW 19.108.010(2).”
Inteliclear, LLC v. Etc Global Holdings, 978 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 6× “” 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (3). The panel held that there was a triable issue whether InteliClear had shown that parts of the InteliClear system were secret.”
Alta Devices, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 343 F. Supp. 3d 868 (N.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 6× “3d 600 (2008) ; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (5) ; Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.”
Trinity Graphic, USA, Inc. v. Tervis Tumbler Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d 1285 (M.D. Fla. 2018). · cites it 8× “Specifically, Tervis argues that Count I of the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to establish that its methods and processes satisfy the statutory definition of "trade secrets" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (3) ; and Plaintiff fails to establish that…”
Life Spine, Inc. v. Aegis Spine, Inc., 8 F.4th 531 (7th Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “” 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (3). Illi‐ nois’s definition is materially identical.”
Broker Genius, Inc. v. Zalta, 280 F. Supp. 3d 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 4× “2016); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (5). The DTSA’s definition of “improper means” includes “misrepresentation, [and] breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy,” but expressly excludes, “reverse engineering” and “independent derivation.”
United States v. Walter Liew, 856 F.3d 585 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “The given instruction incorporated the trade secret definition used by the EEA at the time the offenses were committed and at the time of trial, 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (3) (2008), and further provided that trade secrets “can include compilations .”
WeRide Corp. v. Kun Huang, 379 F. Supp. 3d 834 (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 4× “16, 2017) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (5) and Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.”
Compulife Software Inc. v. Moses Newman, 959 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “See 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (5), (6). In DTSA, “reverse engineering, independent derivation, or any other lawful means of acquisition” are expressly exempted from the definition of “improper means.”
Uni-Sys., LLC v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n, Inc., 350 F. Supp. 3d 143 (E.D.N.Y 2018). · cites it 4× “ically, or in writing if- (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper…”
Synopsys, Inc. v. Risk Based Sec., Inc., 70 F.4th 759 (4th Cir. 2023). · cites it 8× “1-336 and citing 18 U.S.C. § 1839 (3)), and that its owner had undertaken “reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of its asserted trade secrets,” id.”
Show all 1,046 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3) — 13 cases
The Nevada Indep. v. Whitley, 2022 NV 15 (Nev. 2022).
LQD Bus. Fin., LLC. v. Rose (N.D. Ill. 2020).
Valmarc Corp. v. Nike, Inc. (D. Or. 2022).
Beyond the Dog, LLC v. Allyson Salzer & Canine Behavioral Blueprints, LLC; Allyson Salzer & Canine Behavioral Bluepr (D. Conn. 2026).
Tirgari v. Kazemipour (S.D. Cal. 2022).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(A) — 1 case
LQD Bus. Fin., LLC. v. Rose (N.D. Ill. 2020).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(B) — 1 case
The Nevada Indep. v. Whitley, 2022 NV 15 (Nev. 2022).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1839(5) — 15 cases
Valmarc Corp. v. Nike, Inc. (D. Or. 2022).
Cutera, Inc. v. Lutronic Aesthetics, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2020).
ExamWorks, LLC v. Baldini (E.D. Cal. 2020).
Ever.Ag, LLC v. Milk Moovement, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2022).
TGG Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Petraglia (S.D. Cal. 2020).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1839(5)(B)(i) — 1 case
Versata Software, LLC v. Ford Motor Co. (Fed. Cir. 2026).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1839(6) — 2 cases
Brosa (D. Ariz. 2025).
Brosa (D. Ariz. 2026).
— 18 U.S.C. § 1839(6)(A) — 2 cases
Spigot, Inc. v. Hoggatt (M.D. Fla. 2020).
LQD Bus. Fin., LLC. v. Rose (N.D. Ill. 2020).
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.