Utah Non-Disclosure Agreement Requirements
An employer that sues or arbitrates in Utah to enforce a noncompete lasting more than one year after employment ends owes the employee's attorney fees, court costs, and actual damages under the Post-Employment Restrictions Act, for any noncompete entered into on or after May 10, 2016 (Utah Code Sections 34-51-201 and 34-51-301).
Introduction
An employer that sues or arbitrates in Utah to enforce a noncompete lasting more than one year after employment ends owes the employee's attorney fees, court costs, and actual damages under the Post-Employment Restrictions Act, for any noncompete entered into on or after May 10, 2016 (Utah Code Sections 34-51-201 and 34-51-301). None of that exposure ever attaches to a Utah NDA, because the Act's definition of a covered "post-employment restrictive covenant" expressly excludes nonsolicitation agreements and nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements (Utah Code Section 34-51-102). A Non-Disclosure Agreement in Utah is otherwise an ordinary contract in which one or both parties agree to keep specified information confidential, mutual or one-way, no matter how broadly its confidentiality definition is written. Trade secrets shared under the agreement carry separate protection under the Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Utah Code Sections 13-24-1 through 13-24-9), and a misappropriation claim generally must be filed within three years of when the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. Utah is also one of a small group of states with an employee invention-assignment carve-out: the Employment Inventions Act (Utah Code Sections 34-39-1 through 34-39-3) keeps an employer from claiming an invention an employee created entirely on their own time and unrelated to the employer's business, though unlike California, Utah's version does not require the employer to give the employee written notice of the Act. The practical effect for drafting is that a Utah NDA can define confidentiality broadly without triggering the noncompete statute, but an NDA that also asks an employee to assign inventions still has to work within what the Employment Inventions Act allows.
0/5000
Key Things to Know
- 1
Utah's Employment Inventions Act (Utah Code Sections 34-39-1 through 34-39-3) keeps an employer from reaching an invention an employee created entirely on their own time, unless the invention relates to the employer's business or resulted from work the employee did for the employer. Unlike California, Utah does not require the employer to give the employee written notice of the Act.
- 2
Utah's Post-Employment Restrictions Act (Utah Code Section 34-51-102) defines "post-employment restrictive covenant" to exclude nonsolicitation agreements and nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements entirely, so an NDA is not subject to the Act's one-year cap on noncompetes or its employer fee-shift penalty. That exemption is not unconditional: the confidentiality duties still have to be real, tied to actual trade secrets or sensitive information, rather than functioning as a disguised noncompete.
- 3
That one-year cap still matters for context: for a noncompete entered into on or after May 10, 2016, Utah law voids any post-employment restrictive covenant lasting more than one year, and an employer that sues or arbitrates to enforce an unenforceable one owes the employee's attorney fees, court costs, and actual damages (Utah Code Sections 34-51-201 and 34-51-301). None of that exposure attaches to an NDA itself.
- 4
Trade secret protection runs through the Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Utah Code Sections 13-24-1 through 13-24-9), separate from whatever the NDA itself says.
- 5
A trade secret misappropriation claim in Utah generally must be filed within three years of when the misappropriation was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, and a continuing misappropriation counts as a single claim rather than restarting the clock (Utah Code Section 13-24-7).
- 6
Mutual NDAs, where both sides share confidential information, and one-way NDAs, where only one side does, are both ordinary enforceable contracts in Utah; which one fits depends on whether the exchange runs both directions, like a partnership or acquisition discussion, or one direction, like pitching an investor.
- 7
A Utah court can order injunctive relief to stop an ongoing or threatened breach of a valid NDA, in addition to any damages the disclosure caused, and a trade secret claim under the Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act can proceed as an independent basis for relief.
Key decisions before you file
Before you file a Non-Disclosure Agreement in Utah, a few decisions shape the document: which option to choose and what each one means. The Non-Disclosure Agreement guide walks through them.
Open the Non-Disclosure Agreement guideCustomize your Non-Disclosure Agreement Template with DocDraft
Utah Requirements for Non-Disclosure Agreement
Definition of Confidential Information (Utah Code Section 13-24-2)
Clearly defines what constitutes confidential information under Utah law, including trade secrets as defined in the Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
Trade Secret Protection (Utah Code Section 13-24-1 et seq.)
Specific provisions addressing the protection of trade secrets in accordance with Utah's adoption of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, including remedies for misappropriation.
Federal Trade Secret Protection and Whistleblower Notice (18 U.S.C. Section 1836 et seq. and Section 1833(b), Defend Trade Secrets Act)
Acknowledges federal civil remedies for trade secret misappropriation under 18 U.S.C. Section 1836. The whistleblower immunity notice, protecting a person from criminal or civil liability for disclosing a trade secret in confidence to a government official or attorney to report a suspected violation of law, or in a sealed court filing, is a separate, specific provision at 18 U.S.C. Section 1833(b), required to preserve the disclosing party's full remedies under the Act.
Economic Espionage Act Considerations (18 U.S.C. Sections 1831 through 1839)
Acknowledgment of federal criminal penalties for theft of trade secrets, which provides additional protection beyond state law remedies.
Injunctive Relief (Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 65A)
Provisions acknowledging the right to seek injunctive relief, including preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, for breach of the NDA under Utah civil procedure rules.
Electronic Signatures (Utah Code Section 46-4-101 et seq., Uniform Electronic Transactions Act)
Provisions allowing for electronic signatures in accordance with Utah's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.
Federal Electronic Signatures Compliance (15 U.S.C. Section 7001 et seq., E-SIGN Act)
Acknowledgment of the validity of electronic signatures under federal law for interstate commerce.
Severability (Utah common law on contract interpretation)
Provisions ensuring that if any part of the agreement is found unenforceable under Utah law, the remainder continues in effect. No single Utah statute governs general contract severability, so this rests on the general common law principle rather than a specific code section.
Disclosure Required by Law (Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45)
Provisions addressing situations where disclosure is required by law, court order, or governmental authority, consistent with Utah's subpoena rule, which governs issuance, service, compliance timelines, and objections.
Securities Laws Compliance (15 U.S.C. Section 78a et seq., Securities Exchange Act)
Acknowledgment that the NDA does not restrict disclosures required by federal securities laws, relevant if the agreement involves a publicly traded company or material nonpublic information.
Statute of Limitations (Utah Code Section 78B-2-309 and Section 13-24-7)
A breach-of-contract claim on a written NDA generally must be filed within six years under Utah Code Section 78B-2-309. A separate claim that the same disclosure also misappropriated a trade secret carries its own three-year limitations period running from discovery under Utah Code Section 13-24-7; these are two distinct limitations periods, not one shared statute covering both claim types.