PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 21, 2013
Future of American Innovation and Research Act of 2013 or the FAIR Act - Authorizes the owner or lawful possessor of a covered trade secret (that is related to or included in a product or service that is used in or reasonably anticipated to be used in interstate or foreign commerce) to bring a civil action in a U.S. district court against a person (including a legal or commercial entity) who misappropriates, threatens to misappropriate, or conspires to misappropriate such trade secret: (1) while located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) on behalf of, or for the benefit of, a person located outside such territorial jurisdiction.
Defines "misappropriate" as the acquisition or disclosure of a trade secret under specified circumstances through improper means, including theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, and espionage through electronic means. Excludes reverse engineering or independent derivation from the categories of improper means when such activity alone is the only alleged conduct.
Permits an action to arise from conduct outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States if the conduct, either by itself or in combination with conduct within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, causes or is reasonably anticipated to cause an injury: (1) within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or (2) to a U.S. person.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Provides for an affirmative defense to such an action if each alleged trade secret in dispute was readily ascertainable through proper means by other persons who did not already know the trade secret at the time of the alleged conduct.
Authorizes a court, upon an ex parte application, to order the seizure of any property used to commit or facilitate specified conduct alleged in the civil action.
People & committees
Sen. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1770 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1770 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1770 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1770 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.