Washington has not adopted the inevitable disclosure doctrine, and has not rejected it. Moore v. Commercial Aircraft Interiors, LLC, 168 Wn. App. 502, 512–13, 278 P.3d 197 (2012), states that the doctrine is neither adopted nor rejected and declined to decide whether to adopt it. The question remains open in the state appellate courts.
Two considerations bear on how that gap is likely to be filled. RCW 19.108.020(1) authorizes injunctions against threatened misappropriation, which some courts elsewhere have treated as an implicit statutory foothold for the doctrine. Conversely, 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(A)(i) forecloses reliance on inevitable disclosure for federal injunctive relief, requiring that any condition on employment rest on evidence of threatened misappropriation rather than on what the employee knows. A litigant seeking an inevitable-disclosure-style injunction will therefore fare better, if at all, in state court, and should frame the showing as evidence of threatened misappropriation rather than as an invocation of the doctrine by name.