OpenCaseAsk a question

Is corporate espionage a civil claim with damages?

Direct answer: There is no freestanding tort called “corporate espionage.” The conduct typically falls under civil trade-secret misappropriation claims—federal (DTSA) and state UTSA analogs—which allow damages, exemplary damages for willful and malicious conduct, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. [1] [2] [3]

Issue

Whether “corporate espionage” is a standalone civil claim, and if not, what civil claims (and elements) capture that conduct and permit damages. [1] [2]

Rule

  • Federal: The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), part of the Economic Espionage Act (EEA), creates a private civil cause of action for trade-secret misappropriation and authorizes damages, exemplary (punitive) damages up to 2x for willful and malicious misappropriation, attorneys’ fees, and in limited cases, pre-trial seizure. [1]
    • As summarized: “The Defend Trade Secrets Act dramatically increased EEA civil enforcement options when it authorized private causes of action for the victims of trade secret misappropriation,” and permits exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees for willful and malicious misappropriation. [1]
    • DTSA damages provisions include: 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(C) (exemplary damages) and 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D) (attorneys’ fees). [1]
  • State (example—Washington UTSA): Washington’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) supplies a civil claim for misappropriation, defines key terms, and provides remedies including injunctive relief, actual-loss damages, unjust-enrichment recovery, and attorneys’ fees for willful and malicious misappropriation. [2] [6]
    • Definition—Trade Secret: Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010 defines “trade secret” and “misappropriation.” [2] [6]
    • Remedies: Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.108.020 (injunction), 19.108.030 (damages for actual loss and unjust enrichment), and 19.108.040 (attorneys’ fees for willful and malicious). [2] [6]
    • Litigation protections: Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.050 (protective orders to preserve secrecy). [6]
    • Limitations: Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.060 (3-year statute of limitations from discovery; continuing misappropriation = single claim). [2]
    • Displacement: Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.900 displaces conflicting tort/restitutionary law “pertaining to civil liability for misappropriation of a trade secret,” but not contractual or other civil liability that is not based on misappropriation. [2]

Elements (civil misappropriation of trade secrets)

Elements are substantially harmonized across DTSA/UTSA; Washington’s UTSA and pattern instructions illustrate them clearly. [2] [3] [4] [5]

  • Existence of a trade secret

    • The plaintiff owned information that (1) derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable by proper means, and (2) is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(4); see WPI 351.02. [2] [5]
    • Washington cases emphasize plaintiffs must prove a legally protectable trade secret exists. See Boeing Co. v. Sierracin Corp., 108 Wn.2d 38, 738 P.2d 665 (1987); Ed Nowogroski Ins., Inc. v. Rucker, 137 Wn.2d 427, 971 P.2d 936 (1999) (existence is fact-intensive). [3] [5]

  • Misappropriation by the defendant

    • Misappropriation means acquisition, disclosure, or use of the trade secret without consent by a person who used improper means or knew (or had reason to know) the information was obtained through improper means or under a duty of secrecy. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(2); WPI 351.03. [2] [4]
    • “Improper means” expressly includes “espionage through electronic or other means.” Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(1). [2]
    • Misappropriation can occur even by memorization and later disclosure. Ed Nowogroski Ins., Inc. v. Rucker, 137 Wn.2d 427, 971 P.2d 936 (1999). [4]

  • Causation and damages (or unjust enrichment)

    • The trade secret owner must prove the misappropriation proximately caused damages (actual loss), or that the defendant received money/benefits that should be disgorged as unjust enrichment. WPI 351.01. [3]
    • Washington UTSA authorizes recovery of “actual loss” and “unjust enrichment” not accounted for in actual-loss damages; injunctions are also available. Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.108.020, 19.108.030. [2]

Washington’s Pattern Jury Instructions synthesize these elements:

“On the claim of misappropriated trade secrets, [plaintiff] has the burden of proving … (1) [plaintiff] had a trade secret; (2) [defendant] misappropriated [plaintiff]’s trade secret; and (3) [proximate cause of damages] [or unjust enrichment].” (WPI 351.01). [3]

Statutory definitions and remedies include:

“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.” Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(1). [2]
“A complainant may recover damages for the actual loss caused by misappropriation … [and] for the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing damages for actual loss.” Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.030(1). [2]

Federal DTSA remedies (in addition to state UTSA remedies) include exemplary damages and fees for willful and malicious misappropriation, and even pre-trial seizure in appropriate cases:

“In a civil action … the court may … if the trade secret is willfully and maliciously misappropriated, award exemplary damages [up to 2x] … and … award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.” 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(C)–(D). [1]
The EEA “permits pre-trial seizure orders in some circumstances.” [1]

Analysis

  • “Corporate espionage” is not itself a named civil cause of action, but the core conduct—obtaining a rival’s confidential business information by improper means—is squarely addressed as “misappropriation of trade secrets” under both DTSA and UTSA frameworks. [1] [2]
  • Washington’s UTSA explicitly lists “espionage through electronic or other means” as an improper means, making clear that the sort of conduct commonly called “corporate espionage” can satisfy the “improper means” element. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.010(1). [2]
  • Elements: Plaintiffs must prove a qualifying trade secret, misappropriation (acquisition/use/disclosure via improper means or with knowledge of a secrecy duty), and damages or unjust enrichment—standards reflected in WPI 351.01–.03 and Washington Supreme Court authority such as Boeing and Ed Nowogroski. [2] [3] [4] [5]
  • Remedies: Both regimes authorize meaningful relief. Washington UTSA provides injunctions, actual-loss and unjust-enrichment damages, and attorneys’ fees for willful/malicious conduct; DTSA adds exemplary damages up to twice compensatory damages and, in rare cases, pre-trial seizure to prevent dissemination. Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.108.020, 19.108.030, 19.108.040; 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(C)–(D). [1] [2]
  • Preemption/Related claims: UTSA may displace overlapping tort theories based solely on trade-secret misappropriation, but does not displace contract claims or other civil liability not based on misappropriation. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.900. [2]
    • Washington appellate decisions reflect some divergence: Division II adopted a “factual preemption” approach in Thola v. Henschell, 140 Wn. App. 70, 164 P.3d 524 (2007), while Division I, relying on Boeing, declined to follow Thola and permitted parallel confidentiality claims, and also held UTSA does not displace statutory replevin. Modumetal, Inc. v. Xtalic Corp., 4 Wn. App. 2d 810, 425 P.3d 871 (2018); SEIU Healthcare Nw. Training P’ship v. Evergreen Freedom Found., 5 Wn. App. 2d 496, 427 P.3d 688 (2018), review denied, 192 Wn.2d 1025 (2019). [3]
  • Additional doctrinal clarifications: Misappropriation can be proven by memorization and subsequent disclosure (Ed Nowogroski), and duties of secrecy may arise from confidential relationships, supporting misappropriation even in the absence of overt “theft.” Pacific Aerospace & Elecs., Inc. v. Taylor, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (E.D. Wash. 2003). [4]

Conclusion

“Corporate espionage” is not a standalone civil claim, but the conduct is actionable under civil trade-secret misappropriation statutes (DTSA/UTSA). The elements are: (1) a protectable trade secret, (2) misappropriation by improper means or in breach of a duty (which expressly includes “espionage”), and (3) damages or unjust enrichment caused by the misappropriation. Remedies include injunctive relief, actual-loss and unjust-enrichment damages, attorneys’ fees for willful/malicious conduct, and under DTSA, exemplary damages up to 2x and limited pre-trial seizure. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Notes on related claims (and displacement)

  • Contract-based claims (e.g., NDA, confidentiality agreements) typically are not displaced by UTSA. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.108.900(2); see discussion relying on Boeing in WPI commentary. [2] [3]
  • Some jurisdictions permit parallel confidentiality or replevin claims; Washington Division I has recognized both despite UTSA, while Division II has suggested factual preemption. Modumetal; SEIU Healthcare; Thola. [3]
  • Practically, the core route to damages for “corporate espionage” is a civil trade-secret misappropriation claim meeting the elements above. [2] [3] [4]

Selected authorities (illustrative)

  • DTSA/EEA: 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(C)–(D) (exemplary damages, fees); CRS overview confirming private right and pre-trial seizure. [1]
  • Washington UTSA: Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.108.010, 19.108.020, 19.108.030, 19.108.040, 19.108.050, 19.108.060, 19.108.900. [2] [6]
  • Pattern instructions (elements/definitions): WPI 351.01–.03. [3] [4] [5]
  • Cases cited in the WPIs: Boeing Co. v. Sierracin Corp., 108 Wn.2d 38, 738 P.2d 665 (1987); Ed Nowogroski Ins., Inc. v. Rucker, 137 Wn.2d 427, 971 P.2d 936 (1999); Modumetal, Inc. v. Xtalic Corp., 4 Wn. App. 2d 810, 425 P.3d 871 (2018); Thola v. Henschell, 140 Wn. App. 70, 164 P.3d 524 (2007); SEIU Healthcare Nw. Training P’ship v. Evergreen Freedom Found., 5 Wn. App. 2d 496, 427 P.3d 688 (2018), review denied, 192 Wn.2d 1025 (2019); Pacific Aerospace & Elecs., Inc. v. Taylor, 295 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (E.D. Wash. 2003). [3] [4]
  • Example DTSA case (as noted by CRS): Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. The Trizetto Grp., Inc., 68 F.4th 792 (2d Cir. 2023) (upholding DTSA punitive damages for willful/malicious misappropriation). [1]

Sources & References

  1. Stealing Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: An Overview of the Economic Espionage Act (Congress.gov)
  2. Chapter 19.108 RCW: Uniform Trade Secrets Act (WA.gov)
  3. WPI 351.01 Trade Secrets—Burden of Proof (Washington Civil Jury Instructions)
  4. WPI 351.03 Misappropriation—Definition (Washington Civil Jury Instructions)
  5. WPI 351.02 Trade Secret—Definition (Washington Civil Jury Instructions)
  6. Chapter 19.108 RCW: Uniform Trade Secrets Act (WA.gov – index)

Related Questions

What jurisdiction will govern your dispute (federal DTSA claim and/or a particular state’s UTSA), and do you need a pleading checklist tailored to that forum?Do you want model injunctive-relief and damages theories (actual loss vs. unjust enrichment) mapped to your facts?Is there an NDA or confidentiality agreement at issue, and should parallel contract claims be pled alongside UTSA/DTSA claims given potential displacement arguments?Do you want sample jury instructions and verdict forms aligned to your jurisdiction’s UTSA for trial planning?
Is corporate espionage a civil claim with damages? | OpenCase