Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA): What Business Owners Need to Know

What MUTSA Is and Why It Matters

Minnesota adopted its version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1980, joining the majority of states that have enacted some form of this model legislation. The short-title provision, Minn. Stat. § 325C.08, states that sections 325C.01 to 325C.07 “may be cited as the ‘Uniform Trade Secrets Act.’” MUTSA establishes:

• What qualifies as a trade secret
• What constitutes misappropriation
• What remedies are available to the trade secret owner
• How long you have to bring a claim

Before MUTSA, trade secret claims in Minnesota relied on a patchwork of common law theories, breach of confidence, unfair competition, unjust enrichment. MUTSA consolidated and clarified the law, giving business owners a more predictable framework for protecting confidential business information.

For business owners, MUTSA matters because it is the statute your attorney will rely on when drafting protective agreements, the statute a court will apply when evaluating your claim, and the statute opposing counsel will use to argue that your information does not qualify for protection.

What Qualifies as a Trade Secret Under MUTSA

Minn. Stat. § 325C.01, subd. 5 defines “trade secret” as information that meets two requirements:

Requirement 1: Independent Economic Value

The information must derive “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.”

In practical terms, this means the information gives your business a competitive edge precisely because others do not have it. The value comes from the secrecy itself.

The statute is broad about what types of information qualify. It covers “a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process.” Courts have interpreted this language expansively to include:

• Customer information. Customer lists, purchasing histories, contact information, and contract terms, particularly where the compilation represents significant investment or the relationships themselves are not publicly known.
• Financial information. Pricing strategies, cost structures, profit margins, and vendor terms that competitors could exploit.
• Technical information. Manufacturing processes, chemical formulas, source code, algorithms, and engineering specifications.
• Business strategies. Marketing plans, expansion strategies, M&A targets, and product development roadmaps.
• Compilations. Databases, analytical models, and organized collections of information that provide value beyond their individual components.

The key question is whether the information provides economic value because it is secret, not just whether it is valuable in general.

Requirement 2: Reasonable Efforts to Maintain Secrecy

The information must be “the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”

This is where many claims succeed or fail. It is not enough to have valuable information that competitors do not know. You must demonstrate that your business took affirmative steps to keep it secret. Courts look at the totality of the circumstances, including:

• Whether employees and contractors signed confidentiality agreements
• Whether access to the information was restricted to those with a need to know
• Whether confidential documents were marked or labeled
• Whether the company had security measures (physical and digital) to prevent unauthorized access
• Whether the company conducted exit interviews when employees with access to trade secrets departed
• Whether the company trained employees on confidentiality obligations

No single measure is required, and perfection is not the standard. But the absence of any meaningful effort is fatal to a trade secret claim. A company that treats confidential information casually, sharing it broadly, failing to use NDAs, leaving sensitive files accessible to all employees, will struggle to argue that the information was truly a trade secret.

One point that closes a common gray area: the existence of a trade secret is not negated merely because an employee or other person acquired it without express or specific notice that it is a trade secret, as long as, under all the circumstances, that person “knows or has reason to know that the owner intends or expects the secrecy of the type of information comprising the trade secret to be maintained” (Minn. Stat. § 325C.01, subd. 5). You do not have to label every document “trade secret” for protection to attach, but you do need enough reasonable measures that the recipient understood secrecy was expected.

What Constitutes Misappropriation

Minn. Stat. § 325C.01, subd. 3 defines “misappropriation” in two ways:

1. Improper Acquisition

Acquiring a trade secret by “improper means.” The statute defines “improper means” at subd. 2 to include “theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means” (Minn. Stat. § 325C.01, subd. 2).

This covers the obvious cases, hacking into a competitor’s systems, bribing an employee for information, or stealing physical documents, but also subtler situations, such as inducing someone to violate a confidentiality agreement.

Independent development and reverse engineering do not involve any of these improper means. So a competitor who independently develops the same process, or reverse-engineers a product you sold on the open market, has not used any of the improper means the statute lists, and its conduct is not misappropriation (Minn. Stat. § 325C.01, subds. 2–3).

2. Improper Use or Disclosure

Using or disclosing a trade secret without consent by someone who:

• Acquired it through improper means, or
• Knew or had reason to know that the information was a trade secret and was acquired through improper means, breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or from someone who owed such a duty.

This second category is critical for situations involving departing employees. When an employee leaves and takes confidential information to a new employer, both the former employee and the new employer can be liable, the employee for the improper disclosure, and the new employer if it knew or should have known the information was a trade secret.

A third, narrower branch also applies: someone who, before a material change of position, knew or had reason to know that the information was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake may likewise be liable for its use or disclosure (Minn. Stat. § 325C.01, subd. 3).

Remedies Available Under MUTSA

MUTSA provides several categories of relief, making it a powerful tool for business owners whose trade secrets have been compromised.

Injunctive Relief (§ 325C.02)

A court may issue an injunction to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation. This is often the most important remedy because the goal is to stop the bleeding, to prevent the trade secret from being used or disclosed further.

An injunction can:

• Prohibit a former employee from using or disclosing the trade secret
• Prevent a competitor from using misappropriated information in its operations
• Require the return or destruction of materials containing the trade secret

The injunction may continue for as long as the trade secret exists, plus “an additional reasonable period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.” By the same statute, the injunction “shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist” (Minn. Stat. § 325C.02(a)), but the court can extend it that additional reasonable period so the wrongdoer does not keep benefiting from its head start.

In exceptional circumstances where a prohibitory injunction would be inequitable, the court may instead condition future use on payment of a reasonable royalty (Minn. Stat. § 325C.02(b)). That royalty runs “for no longer than the period of time for which use could have been prohibited,” and exceptional circumstances include a material and prejudicial change of position before the defendant acquired knowledge or reason to know of the misappropriation. And in appropriate circumstances, a court may compel affirmative acts to protect a trade secret (Minn. Stat. § 325C.02(c)), not merely prohibit use.

Damages (§ 325C.03)

A trade secret owner can recover damages for the actual loss caused by the misappropriation. Damages can be measured in several ways:

• Lost profits. The actual loss you suffered as a result of the misappropriation.
• Unjust enrichment. The unjust enrichment the misappropriator gained from using your trade secret, to the extent that gain “is not taken into account in computing actual loss” (Minn. Stat. § 325C.03(a)).
• Reasonable royalty. In lieu of damages measured by any other method, the court may measure damages by imposing “liability for a reasonable royalty for a misappropriator’s unauthorized disclosure or use of a trade secret” (Minn. Stat. § 325C.03(a)), what a willing buyer would have paid in an arm’s-length transaction. In practice, this measure is used when actual loss and unjust enrichment cannot be adequately proven.

The actual-loss and unjust-enrichment measures are not mutually exclusive; a court may combine them to fully compensate the trade secret owner, so long as there is no double recovery. The reasonable-royalty measure, by contrast, is an alternative used “in lieu of” the others.

Exemplary Damages (§ 325C.03)

If the misappropriation was “willful and malicious,” the court may award exemplary (punitive) damages “in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under paragraph (a)” (Minn. Stat. § 325C.03(b)). This provision serves as a deterrent and reflects the seriousness with which Minnesota law treats intentional trade secret theft.

Attorney Fees (§ 325C.04)

The court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party if:

• A claim of misappropriation was made in bad faith,
• A motion to terminate an injunction was made or resisted in bad faith, or
• Willful and malicious misappropriation exists.

This is a two-way provision. It can compensate a successful plaintiff whose trade secrets were willfully stolen, but it can also protect a defendant from baseless trade secret claims brought to harass a competitor or former employee.

Statute of Limitations (§ 325C.06)

A trade secret claim must be brought within three years after the misappropriation is discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. A continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim, so the three-year period runs from the initial discovery rather than resetting with each continuing act. While the discovery rule provides some flexibility, business owners should not delay.

The “reasonable diligence” requirement means you cannot sit on your hands. If there were red flags, a departing employee joined a direct competitor and the competitor suddenly launched a suspiciously similar product, the clock may start running even if you did not investigate immediately.

Preemption of Other Claims (§ 325C.07)

MUTSA displaces “conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law” of Minnesota providing civil remedies for trade secret misappropriation (Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(a)). This means that if your claim is fundamentally about someone stealing your trade secrets, MUTSA is the vehicle, you generally cannot repackage the same facts as a common law unfair competition or unjust enrichment claim to avoid MUTSA’s requirements.

MUTSA does not affect (Minn. Stat. § 325C.07(b)):

• Contractual remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation. Nondisclosure agreements, confidentiality provisions, and nonsolicitation agreements that address confidential information remain independently enforceable.
• Criminal remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation. Trade secret theft can also be prosecuted as a crime under separate Minnesota and federal law.
• Other civil remedies not based on misappropriation, such as breach of fiduciary duty or tortious interference, to the extent those claims rest on conduct independent of the trade secret allegations.

One important caveat on non-competes. Minnesota now bans most employee and independent-contractor non-compete agreements. Under Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 2(a), “[a]ny covenant not to compete contained in a contract or agreement is void and unenforceable.” That ban applies to covenants entered into on or after July 1, 2023 (Laws 2023, ch. 53, art. 6, § 1); it is not retroactive, so non-competes signed before that date are not voided by the statute and may still be enforced if otherwise valid under prior common law (supported by consideration and reasonable in scope, geography, and duration). The ban reaches only true post-employment covenants not to compete; it does not bar nondisclosure agreements, trade-secret agreements, or agreements restricting the solicitation of customers or employees, so those protective contracts remain fully available. Two narrow exceptions preserve non-competes agreed upon in the sale of a business or in the dissolution of a business among its owners (Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 2(b)). And an employer cannot use an out-of-state choice-of-law or forum clause to escape these Minnesota protections for an employee who primarily resides and works in Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 3).

MUTSA and the Federal DTSA: How They Work Together

Since May 11, 2016, Minnesota business owners have had two paths for trade secret claims: MUTSA in state court and the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA, 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq.) in federal court. The two statutes are complementary, not mutually exclusive: 18 U.S.C. § 1838 provides that the DTSA “shall not be construed to preempt or displace any other remedies” provided by state law for trade secret misappropriation, so you may pursue DTSA and MUTSA claims together.

Key differences and points that affect the choice between them:

• Jurisdiction. A DTSA action is brought in federal court; the federal district courts have original jurisdiction of DTSA civil actions (18 U.S.C. § 1836(c)). A MUTSA claim is typically brought in Minnesota state court, but it may also be heard in federal court, where it is frequently pleaded alongside a DTSA claim. The DTSA requires that the trade secret be “related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce” (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1)).
• Statute of limitations. A DTSA civil action “may not be commenced later than 3 years after the date on which the misappropriation . . . is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered” (18 U.S.C. § 1836(d)), the same three-year discovery period MUTSA uses.
• Ex parte seizure. The DTSA allows a court, “upon ex parte application but only in extraordinary circumstances,” to order “the seizure of property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret” (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2)(A)(i)). MUTSA has no equivalent provision.
• Whistleblower immunity. The DTSA provides immunity for individuals who disclose a trade secret in confidence to a federal, state, or local government official or an attorney solely to report or investigate a suspected violation of law, or in a sealed court filing (18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(1)). MUTSA does not include this provision.
• Remedies. Both statutes provide injunctive relief, compensatory damages (actual loss plus unjust enrichment, or a reasonable royalty), exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The DTSA authorizes an injunction, actual-loss and unjust-enrichment damages (or a reasonable royalty), exemplary damages of up to twice the compensatory award, and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party where the trade secret “is willfully and maliciously misappropriated” (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)), the same “willful and malicious” trigger MUTSA applies in § 325C.03(b).

Many plaintiffs file claims under both MUTSA and the DTSA in federal court, preserving their rights under both statutes.

A compliance note: the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice

The DTSA imposes a practical duty on you as an employer. You must include notice of the whistleblower immunity in any contract or agreement with an employee that governs the use of a trade secret or other confidential information (18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)(3)). You are considered compliant if you cross-reference a separate policy document that sets forth your reporting policy for a suspected violation of law. For this purpose, “employee” includes any individual performing work as a contractor or consultant, so the notice belongs in confidentiality agreements with contractors and consultants, not just W-2 employees. The requirement applies to contracts and agreements entered into or updated after May 11, 2016. If you fail to give the notice, you may not be awarded exemplary damages or attorney fees under the DTSA against an employee who was not notified.

Practical Steps for Minnesota Business Owners

Understanding MUTSA is the starting point. Putting it into practice requires action:

1. Identify what you are protecting. Create a written inventory of your trade secrets. If you cannot articulate what information you consider confidential, you will struggle to protect it.

2. Document your protective measures. Courts want to see evidence of reasonable efforts. Policies, agreements, training records, and access logs all serve as that evidence.

3. Use confidentiality agreements, with the required DTSA notice. Every employee, contractor, and vendor with access to trade secrets should sign an NDA or confidentiality agreement that specifically describes the categories of protected information, and that agreement should include the DTSA whistleblower-immunity notice (or a cross-reference to your reporting policy) so you preserve your right to exemplary damages and fees.

4. Control access. Restrict access to trade secrets on a need-to-know basis. Use role-based permissions for digital systems and physical access controls for sensitive areas.

5. Manage departures carefully. Conduct exit interviews, recover devices and credentials, and remind departing employees of their ongoing confidentiality obligations, in writing.

6. Act quickly when misappropriation is suspected. Delay can result in wider dissemination of the trade secret, loss of injunctive relief, and potential statute of limitations issues. If you suspect misappropriation, consult with counsel immediately to evaluate your options and preserve evidence.

7. Review and update regularly. Trade secrets change as your business evolves. New products, new processes, new hires, and new technologies all require updates to your trade secret inventory and protection measures.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does MUTSA protect customer lists?

Customer lists can qualify as trade secrets under MUTSA, but it depends on the specific facts. Because MUTSA’s definition of “trade secret” expressly reaches a “compilation” (Minn. Stat. § 325C.01, subd. 5), a customer list qualifies only where it satisfies both statutory prongs. A list that merely compiles publicly available names is unlikely to qualify. A list that reflects significant investment, containing pricing terms, purchasing patterns, decision-maker contacts, and relationship history that is not readily ascertainable, has a stronger claim. Qualification turns on whether the information satisfies both statutory prongs: independent economic value and reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy (Minn. Stat. § 325C.01, subd. 5).

Can a former employee use general knowledge and skills gained at my company?

Yes. MUTSA does not prevent former employees from using their general skills, training, and industry knowledge. The distinction is between general expertise (which belongs to the employee) and specific proprietary information (which belongs to the company). Interpreting MUTSA, the Minnesota Supreme Court put it directly: “The law of trade secrets will not protect talent or expertise, only secret information.” Electro-Craft Corp. v. Controlled Motion, Inc., 332 N.W.2d 890, 900 (Minn. 1983). A salesperson can use their general sales skills and industry knowledge at a new job; they cannot take your customer list, pricing database, or strategic plans with them.

What should I do if I discover a former employee took trade secrets?

Act immediately. Preserve all evidence of the employee’s access, the information taken, and any protective measures you had in place. Consult with an attorney to evaluate whether you have a viable claim under MUTSA (and potentially the DTSA), and to determine whether emergency injunctive relief is appropriate. Document everything, the timeline of events, the specific information involved, and the potential harm to your business.

How is MUTSA different from patent or copyright protection?

Patents protect inventions and require public disclosure in exchange for a time-limited monopoly: a patent grants “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention” for a term ending 20 years from the filing date (35 U.S.C. § 154), in exchange for a specification that discloses the invention in enough detail “to enable any person skilled in the art . . . to make and use the same” (35 U.S.C. § 112). Copyrights protect original expression fixed in a tangible medium, not the underlying ideas, procedures, processes, systems, or methods of operation (17 U.S.C. § 102). Trade secrets protect confidential business information that derives value from its secrecy, and protection lasts as long as the information remains secret and you maintain reasonable protective efforts (Minn. Stat. § 325C.01, subd. 5). Many businesses use all three forms of protection for different aspects of their intellectual property.

Can I bring a MUTSA claim if I do not have a non-compete agreement with the employee?

Yes. MUTSA is a statutory cause of action that exists independently of any contract; liability turns on the acquisition, disclosure, or use of a trade secret by improper means, not on any signed agreement (Minn. Stat. § 325C.01, subds. 2–3). You do not need a non-compete, NDA, or any written agreement to bring a misappropriation claim. Confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements still help, because they demonstrate that you took reasonable efforts to protect your trade secrets and that the employee was on notice of their obligations, and they remain fully enforceable even though Minnesota now voids most non-competes signed on or after July 1, 2023.

---

For guidance specific to your situation, contact Aaron Hall, attorney for business owners, at aaronhall.com or 612-466-0040.