Utah Code » Title 13, Chapter 24 — Uniform Trade Secrets Act
Utah Code

Utah Code § 13-24-4 (2026)

Damages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except to the extent that a material and prejudicial change of position prior to acquiring knowledge or reason to know of misappropriation renders a monetary recovery inequitable, a complainant is entitled to recover damages for misappropriation. Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss. In lieu of damages measured by any other methods, the damages caused by misappropriation may be measured by imposition of liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator's unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret.
If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under Subsection (1).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 2016 UT 20 (Utah 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 2016 UT 20 (Utah 2016). · cites it 3× “Urax Cope § 13-24-4(1). 73 . See Russo v. Ballard Med.”
Russo v. Ballard Med. Prods., 550 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Under Utah Code Ann. § 13-24-4 (1), a plaintiff has the express choice of seeking unjust enrichment damages to remedy trade secret misappropriation.”
LifeVantage Corp. v. Domingo, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (D. Utah 2016). · cites it 4× “” Utah Code § 13-24-4(1). And under Utah law, a plaintiff must “come forward with admissible ‘evidence that rises above speculation and provides a reasonable, even though not necessarily precise, estimate of damages.”
ClearOne Commc'ns, Inc. v. Biamp Sys., 653 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2011). “” Utah Code Ann. § 13-24-4 (1). Biamp argues that the lost profits award exceeds the amount of profits that it made by selling the infringing product and, thus, that the unjust enrichment award is duplicative.”
Storagecraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby, 744 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “” Utah Code Ann. § 13-24-4 (1). This last option is sometimes described as “the price that would be set by a willing buyer and a willing seller” for a license in the trade secret, a measure of damages that seeks to recreate “an actual market transaction .”
ClearOne Commc'ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2011). “6 The district court’s exemplary damages award, which was issued on April 20, 2009, just prior to the entry of final judgment, was made, at ClearOne’s request, pursuant to Section 4(2) of the UUTSA, which provides that “[i]f willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the…”
Water & Energy Sys. Tech., Inc. v. Keil, 2002 UT 32 (Utah 2002). · cites it 2× “Rather than restricting damages in misappropriation cases to the windfall obtained by the defendant, section 13-24-4 unambiguously states that such damages "can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is…”
Innosys, Inc. v. Mercer, 2015 UT 80 (Utah 2015). “UTAH CODE § 13-24-4(1). Where a statute provides for a particular amount or form of damages, ―[a]ny expansion of the damages that may be recovered must be undertaken by the legis- 31 INNOSYS, INC.”
Gen. Water Tech. v. Van Zweden, 2022 UT App 90 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Van Zweden the circumstances,” see Utah Code Ann. § 13-24-4 (4)(b); see also Editions Play Bac, SA v.”
Feller Behavioral Health v. Military & Vet., 2025 UT 33 (Utah 2025). · cites it 6× “In granting part of Freedom Counseling’s motion, the court concluded as a matter of law that trade secrets exist and that FBH misappropriated them. And in denying FBH’s motion, the court rejected FBH’s contention that Freedom Counseling fell short of carrying its burden to…”
USA Power v. Pacificorp, 2016 UT 20 (Utah 2016). · cites it 3× “‖75 Further, our standard of review when considering a trial court‘s decision to deny a rule 59 request for a new trial is deferential—we will reverse only if there ―is no reasonable basis for the decision.”
Silverthorne v. Sterling Seismic (5th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “at 1186 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 13-24-4 (1)) (emphasis added in original).”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 13-24-4(1) — 6 cases
USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 2016 UT 20 (Utah 2016). “Urax Cope § 13-24-4(1). 73 . See Russo v. Ballard Med.”
LifeVantage Corp. v. Domingo, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1202 (D. Utah 2016). “” Utah Code § 13-24-4(1). And under Utah law, a plaintiff must “come forward with admissible ‘evidence that rises above speculation and provides a reasonable, even though not necessarily precise, estimate of damages.”
Russo v. Ballard Med. Prods., 550 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 2008). “Under Utah Code Ann. § 13-24-4 (1), a plaintiff has the express choice of seeking unjust enrichment damages to remedy trade secret misappropriation.”
Innosys, Inc. v. Mercer, 2015 UT 80 (Utah 2015). “UTAH CODE § 13-24-4(1). Where a statute provides for a particular amount or form of damages, ―[a]ny expansion of the damages that may be recovered must be undertaken by the legis- 31 INNOSYS, INC.”
Feller Behavioral Health v. Military & Vet., 2025 UT 33 (Utah 2025). “In granting part of Freedom Counseling’s motion, the court concluded as a matter of law that trade secrets exist and that FBH misappropriated them. And in denying FBH’s motion, the court rejected FBH’s contention that Freedom Counseling fell short of carrying its burden to…”
— Utah Code § 13-24-4(2) — 3 cases
USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 2016 UT 20 (Utah 2016). “Urax Cope § 13-24-4(1). 73 . See Russo v. Ballard Med.”
USA Power v. Pacificorp, 2016 UT 20 (Utah 2016). “‖75 Further, our standard of review when considering a trial court‘s decision to deny a rule 59 request for a new trial is deferential—we will reverse only if there ―is no reasonable basis for the decision.”
Feller Behavioral Health v. Military & Vet., 2025 UT 33 (Utah 2025). “In granting part of Freedom Counseling’s motion, the court concluded as a matter of law that trade secrets exist and that FBH misappropriated them. And in denying FBH’s motion, the court rejected FBH’s contention that Freedom Counseling fell short of carrying its burden 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.