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

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.900 (2026)

Effect of chapter on other law

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) This chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state pertaining to civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.
(2) This chapter does not affect:
(a) Contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret; or
(b) Criminal liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.
[ 1981 c 286 s 7.]

Notes:

Theft of trade secrets: RCW 9A.56.010(6), 9A.56.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Seiu Healthcare Nw Training P'ship v. Evergreen Freedom Found., 427 P.3d 688 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seiu Healthcare Nw Training P'ship v. Evergreen Freedom Found., 427 P.3d 688 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “" RCW 19.108.900. The Foundation contends this language preempts the Partnership's replevin claim.”
Thola v. Henschell, 164 P.3d 524 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “¶ 12 RCW 19.108.900 suggests that general civil liability principles, including vicarious liability, are unaffected by the decision to enact the UTSA.”
Thola v. Henschell, 140 Wash. App. 70 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “¶12 RCW 19.108.900 suggests that general civil liability principles, including vicarious liability, are unaffected by the decision to enact the UTSA.”
Bombardier Inc. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “" RCW 19.108.900(1). Conversely, the UTSA does not displace "[c]ontractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Boeing Co. v. Sierracin Corp., 738 P.2d 665 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.108.900 specifically provides, in part: (1) This chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state pertaining to civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.”
T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., 115 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (W.D. Wash. 2015). · cites it 3× “” RCW 19.108.900. It does not preempt “[Contractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Ed Nowogroski Ins. v. Rucker, 50 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1268 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.108.900; 5 Boeing, 108 Wn.2d at 48 .”
Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 418 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2018). “See RCW 19.108.900(1) ("This chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state pertaining to civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Ed Nowogroski Ins., Inc. v. Rucker, 971 P.2d 936 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.108.900 [5] ; Boeing, 108 Wash.2d at 48 , 738 P.”
Modumetal, Inc. v. Xtalic Corp., & John Hunter Martin, 425 P.3d 871 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “at 48 (quoting RCW 19.108.900(1)(2)(a)). The court further noted "[t]he United States Supreme Court has held that proof of trade secrets is not required for breach of confidentiality claims, which may be brought independently of trade secrets 4 Xtalic also argues that Modumetal…”
Ed Nowogroski Inc., Inc. v. Rucker, 944 P.2d 1093 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.108.900. Thus, Nowogroski may not rely on acts that constitute trade secret misappropriation to support other causes of action.”
Ultimate Timing, L.L.C. v. Simms, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (W.D. Wash. 2010). · cites it 2× “” RCW 19.108.900(1); see also RCW 19.108.900(2)(a) (noting the displacement does not affect civil liability that is not based on trade secret misappropriation).”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.900(1) — 12 cases
Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 418 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2018). “See RCW 19.108.900(1) ("This chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state pertaining to civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Bombardier Inc. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (W.D. Wash. 2019). “" RCW 19.108.900(1). Conversely, the UTSA does not displace "[c]ontractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Seiu Healthcare Nw Training P'ship v. Evergreen Freedom Found., 427 P.3d 688 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “" RCW 19.108.900. The Foundation contends this language preempts the Partnership's replevin claim.”
Thola v. Henschell, 164 P.3d 524 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 12 RCW 19.108.900 suggests that general civil liability principles, including vicarious liability, are unaffected by the decision to enact the UTSA.”
Thola v. Henschell, 140 Wash. App. 70 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “¶12 RCW 19.108.900 suggests that general civil liability principles, including vicarious liability, are unaffected by the decision to enact the UTSA.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.900(1)(2)(a) — 1 case
Modumetal, Inc. v. Xtalic Corp., & John Hunter Martin, 425 P.3d 871 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “at 48 (quoting RCW 19.108.900(1)(2)(a)). The court further noted "[t]he United States Supreme Court has held that proof of trade secrets is not required for breach of confidentiality claims, which may be brought independently of trade secrets 4 Xtalic also argues that Modumetal…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.900(2)(a) — 11 cases
Thola v. Henschell, 164 P.3d 524 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 12 RCW 19.108.900 suggests that general civil liability principles, including vicarious liability, are unaffected by the decision to enact the UTSA.”
Seiu Healthcare Nw Training P'ship v. Evergreen Freedom Found., 427 P.3d 688 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “" RCW 19.108.900. The Foundation contends this language preempts the Partnership's replevin claim.”
Bombardier Inc. v. Mitsubishi Aircraft Corp., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (W.D. Wash. 2019). “" RCW 19.108.900(1). Conversely, the UTSA does not displace "[c]ontractual or other civil liability or relief that is not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret.”
Thola v. Henschell, 140 Wash. App. 70 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “¶12 RCW 19.108.900 suggests that general civil liability principles, including vicarious liability, are unaffected by the decision to enact the UTSA.”
Boeing Co. v. Sierracin Corp., 738 P.2d 665 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 19.108.900 specifically provides, in part: (1) This chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state pertaining to civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret.”
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.