Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.108
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions set forth in this section apply throughout this chapter.
(1) "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;
(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 his or her 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 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) "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, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process 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.
[ 1981 c 286 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 106 cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Bombardier Inc. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (W.D. Wash. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bombardier Inc. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 12× “, and the Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA"), RCW 19.108.010 et seq. ( See Compl. ¶¶ 92-136, 164-81, 210-27, 233-50.”
Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 418 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 5× “" RCW 19.108.010(2). ¶ 52 PAWS underscores that threatened misappropriation qualifies for injunction under the UTSA: "Actual or even threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
Ed Nowogroski Ins. v. Rucker, 50 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1268 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 8× “The portion of the Act’s definition of “misappropriation” which applies here proscribes the disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who, at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know his or her knowledge of the…”
Ed Nowogroski Ins., Inc. v. Rucker, 971 P.2d 936 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 8× “The portion of the Act's definition of "misappropriation" which applies here proscribes the disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who, at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know his or her knowledge of the…”
Boeing Co. v. Sierracin Corp., 738 P.2d 665 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 4× “RCW 19.108.010(2)(a) defines "misappropriation” as 11 [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 .”
Inteum Co. v. Nat'l Univ. of Sing., 371 F. Supp. 3d 864 (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 6× “2d 1239 , 1242 (1995) ); Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010 (4). The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the alleged trade secrets are novel and unique, and that the plaintiff has taken efforts to maintain the secrecy of the information that are "reasonable under the…”
MacHen, Inc. v. Aircraft Design, Inc., 828 P.2d 73 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 5× “The trial court held as a matter of law the brake project ideas and technology were not protectable trade secrets under RCW 19.108.010(4) and, even if they were, the authorized disclosures to Cleveland Brake without any attempts at maintaining confidentiality negated trade…”
Pac. Aerospace & Elec., Inc. v. Taylor, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (E.D. Wash. 2003). · cites it 3× “by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means.” RCW 19.”
Modumetal, Inc. v. Xtalic Corp., & John Hunter Martin, 425 P.3d 871 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “010(2)(b) defines "misappropriation" in relevant part as the: 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…”
Ed Nowogroski Inc., Inc. v. Rucker, 944 P.2d 1093 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “RCW 19.108.010(4). We review matters of statutory interpretation de novo.”
Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc., 241 P.3d 1256 (Wash. 2010). “¶ 41 Using similar reasoning, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington held that the economic loss rule did not apply to bar a statutory trade secret misappropriation claim under RCW 19.108.010 et seq. Veritas Operating Corp.”
Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Washington, 884 P.2d 592 (Wash. 1994). “) RCW 19.108.010(4). The UTSA also provides that "[i]n appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order”, RCW 19.”
Show all 106 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(1) — 8 cases
Bombardier Inc. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (W.D. Wash. 2019). “, and the Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA"), RCW 19.108.010 et seq. ( See Compl. ¶¶ 92-136, 164-81, 210-27, 233-50.”
Pac. Aerospace & Elec., Inc. v. Taylor, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (E.D. Wash. 2003). “by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means.” RCW 19.”
Precision Indus. Contractors Inc v. Jack R. Gage Refrigeration Inc (W.D. Wash. 2021).
Oregon Tool Inc v. IronCraft LLC (E.D. Wash. 2023).
Redapt Inc v. Parker (W.D. Wash. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(2) — 28 cases
Bombardier Inc. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (W.D. Wash. 2019). “, and the Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA"), RCW 19.108.010 et seq. ( See Compl. ¶¶ 92-136, 164-81, 210-27, 233-50.”
Ed Nowogroski Ins. v. Rucker, 50 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1268 (Wash. 1999). “The portion of the Act’s definition of “misappropriation” which applies here proscribes the disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who, at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know his or her knowledge of the…”
Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 418 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2018). “" RCW 19.108.010(2). ¶ 52 PAWS underscores that threatened misappropriation qualifies for injunction under the UTSA: "Actual or even threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
Ed Nowogroski Ins., Inc. v. Rucker, 971 P.2d 936 (Wash. 1999). “The portion of the Act's definition of "misappropriation" which applies here proscribes the disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who, at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know his or her knowledge of the…”
Pac. Aerospace & Elec., Inc. v. Taylor, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (E.D. Wash. 2003). “by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means.” RCW 19.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(2)(a) — 4 cases
Bombardier Inc. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (W.D. Wash. 2019). “, and the Washington Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA"), RCW 19.108.010 et seq. ( See Compl. ¶¶ 92-136, 164-81, 210-27, 233-50.”
Boeing Co. v. Sierracin Corp., 738 P.2d 665 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 19.108.010(2)(a) defines "misappropriation” as 11 [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 .”
Mill Creek Foot & Ankle Clinic, App/cr-resps V. Nathan Hansen, Resp/cr-apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
Silver Fern Chem. Inc v. Lyons (W.D. Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(2)(b) — 5 cases
Modumetal, Inc. v. Xtalic Corp., & John Hunter Martin, 425 P.3d 871 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “010(2)(b) defines "misappropriation" in relevant part as the: 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…”
Ed Nowogroski Ins. v. Rucker, 50 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1268 (Wash. 1999). “The portion of the Act’s definition of “misappropriation” which applies here proscribes the disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who, at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know his or her knowledge of the…”
Ed Nowogroski Ins., Inc. v. Rucker, 971 P.2d 936 (Wash. 1999). “The portion of the Act's definition of "misappropriation" which applies here proscribes the disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who, at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know his or her knowledge of the…”
McLeod v. Nw. Alloys, Inc., 969 P.2d 1066 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Silver Fern Chem. Inc v. Lyons (W.D. Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(2)(b)(i) — 1 case
Mill Creek Foot & Ankle Clinic, App/cr-resps V. Nathan Hansen, Resp/cr-apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(2)(b)(ii) — 3 cases
Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 418 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2018). “" RCW 19.108.010(2). ¶ 52 PAWS underscores that threatened misappropriation qualifies for injunction under the UTSA: "Actual or even threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
In Re One 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle, 215 P.3d 166 (Wash. 2009).
Roos v. Snohomish Reg'l Drug Task Force, 166 Wash. 2d 834 (Wash. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(2)(b)(ii)(A) — 1 case
Boeing Co. v. Sierracin Corp., 738 P.2d 665 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 19.108.010(2)(a) defines "misappropriation” as 11 [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 .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(2)(b)(ii)(B) — 1 case
A Place For Mom Inc v. Perkins (W.D. Wash. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(2)(b)(ii)(C) — 2 cases
Petters v. Williamson & Assocs., Inc., 210 P.3d 1048 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Petters v. Williamson & Assocs., Inc., 151 Wash. App. 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(4) — 52 cases
Ed Nowogroski Ins. v. Rucker, 50 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1268 (Wash. 1999). “The portion of the Act’s definition of “misappropriation” which applies here proscribes the disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who, at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know his or her knowledge of the…”
Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 418 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2018). “" RCW 19.108.010(2). ¶ 52 PAWS underscores that threatened misappropriation qualifies for injunction under the UTSA: "Actual or even threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
Ed Nowogroski Ins., Inc. v. Rucker, 971 P.2d 936 (Wash. 1999). “The portion of the Act's definition of "misappropriation" which applies here proscribes the disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who, at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know his or her knowledge of the…”
Boeing Co. v. Sierracin Corp., 738 P.2d 665 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 19.108.010(2)(a) defines "misappropriation” as 11 [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 .”
Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Washington, 884 P.2d 592 (Wash. 1994). “) RCW 19.108.010(4). The UTSA also provides that "[i]n appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order”, RCW 19.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(4)(a) — 16 cases
MacHen, Inc. v. Aircraft Design, Inc., 828 P.2d 73 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “The trial court held as a matter of law the brake project ideas and technology were not protectable trade secrets under RCW 19.108.010(4) and, even if they were, the authorized disclosures to Cleveland Brake without any attempts at maintaining confidentiality negated trade…”
Ed Nowogroski Ins. v. Rucker, 50 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1268 (Wash. 1999). “The portion of the Act’s definition of “misappropriation” which applies here proscribes the disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who, at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know his or her knowledge of the…”
Ed Nowogroski Ins., Inc. v. Rucker, 971 P.2d 936 (Wash. 1999). “The portion of the Act's definition of "misappropriation" which applies here proscribes the disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who, at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know his or her knowledge of the…”
Ed Nowogroski Inc., Inc. v. Rucker, 944 P.2d 1093 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “RCW 19.108.010(4). We review matters of statutory interpretation de novo.”
Petters v. Williamson & Assocs., Inc., 210 P.3d 1048 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(4)(b) — 7 cases
Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 418 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2018). “" RCW 19.108.010(2). ¶ 52 PAWS underscores that threatened misappropriation qualifies for injunction under the UTSA: "Actual or even threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”
Woo v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 154 P.3d 236 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Woo v. Fireman's Fund Ins., 137 Wash. App. 480 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
MacHen, Inc. v. Aircraft Design, Inc., 828 P.2d 73 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “The trial court held as a matter of law the brake project ideas and technology were not protectable trade secrets under RCW 19.108.010(4) and, even if they were, the authorized disclosures to Cleveland Brake without any attempts at maintaining confidentiality negated trade…”
Wilson Aerospace LLC v. The Boeing Co. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024).
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.