Federal Trade Commission

Subscribe to Federal Trade Commission via RSS

On April 23, 2024, the FTC adopted its noncompete rule to ban virtually all employee noncompetes. For background, see my posts on the rule here and here.

The rule was scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2024. But on August 20, 2024, Judge Dana Brown of the U.S. District Court for the…

FTC-1-656x656-1

Well, that was quick. After rejecting a request for a nationwide injunction in her original opinion granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and then summarily denying a motion to reconsider that ruling, this afternoon U.S. District Court Judge Ada Brown reversed course, granted summary judgment against the FTC, and effectively entered a nationwide ban against the Federal Trade Commission’s Final Rule banning noncompetes. This should mean that employers around the country will not have to send out notices to their former and current employees telling them their noncompetes are no longer valid, as the Final Rule required by September 4, 2024. For a concise review of Judge Brown’s opinion, read on.Continue Reading Ding, Dong, the Rule is Dead: Judge Brown Effectively Enters a Nationwide Ban Preventing Enforcement of the FTC’s Noncompete Rule

As widely predicted, U.S. District Court Judge Dana Brown granted Ryan, LLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Final Rule banning noncompetes. In her July 3, 2024 opinion, Judge Brown found that the FTC “lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition.” She also enjoined the FTC from implementing or enforcing the Final Rule against the parties in that case, which included the plaintiff Ryan, LLC, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable.

But while employers may cheer that decision, their noncompetes are not out of the proverbial woods yet. To date, Judge Brown has declined to issue a nationwide injunction prohibiting the FTC from enforcing its rule against other parties. This means that the FTC may still try to enforce its Final Rule against other employers who are not parties to that lawsuit. The FTC’s Final Rule becomes effective Wednesday, September 4, 2024 and it requires employers to provide a notice to current and former employees that their noncompetes are no longer enforceable. Given that impending deadline, many employers are concerned about the uncertainty left by Judge Brown’s decision. However, as explained below, the Final Rule may provide cover for employers under a “good faith” exception.Continue Reading Worried about the Current Uncertainty Over the FTC’s Noncompete Ban? How the FTC’s “Good Faith” Exception May Provide Cover to Employers

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission issued its final rule banning the use of most employee noncompetes throughout the United States.  It is estimated that this new rule will impact at least 30 million employment contracts, including confidentiality agreements and other forms of employee restrictive covenants.  Several lawsuits have already been filed to…

As readers of this blog know, on April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission voted to adopt a rule banning virtually all employee noncompetes. The rule is scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2024. If that happens, how will companies protect their trade secrets, confidential information, customer goodwill, and the integrity of their…

FTC

As readers of this blog already know, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule banning the use of most employee noncompetes throughout the United States.  It’s estimated that this new rule will impact at least 30 million employment contracts, including even confidentiality agreements and other forms of employee restrictive covenants.  Several lawsuits, including…

Yesterday afternoon, as expected, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its Final Rule banning noncompetes throughout the United States during an open hearing available to the public. The FTC’s Final Rule is more measured than the proposed rule announced on January 5, 2023 in several key respects–most notably, (1) nonsolicitation agreements are not prohibited, with some caveats explained below and (2) nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) seem to be on somewhat better footing, as the FTC has abandoned its proposed de facto noncompete test, also with some caveats below. Not unexpectedly, the vote broke down along party lines, 3-2, with the Democratic commissioners voting in favor and the Republican commissioners voting against it. The Final Rule is not yet effective, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already filed a lawsuit challenging it today. Many commentators (including yours truly) believe the Final Rule will not survive that litigation. And while it is an inherently political rule, it does provide some lifelines for employers eager to protect their trade secrets and customer relationships. Here are my preliminary thoughts on what employers and employees need to know.Continue Reading The FTC’s Final Rule Banning Noncompetes: It could have been a lot worse

On Wednesday, March 6, 2024, I will be speaking at the State Bar of Georgia ICLE – Restrictive Covenants and Trade Secrets CLE on a panel entitled “The Assault on Noncompetes: Update on FTC, NLRB and State Efforts to Ban or Curtail the Use of Noncompetes.” I am going to be presenting with Rachel P.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024, I will be giving a one-hour Webinar/CLE for the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA) entitled “Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Law Year in Review.”

As readers of this blog know, the number of trade secret and restrictive cases continues to grow each year. As a result, trade secret disputes and…

Another busy month, lots of developments in high-profile trade secrets cases, the latest on the FTC’s proposed noncompete ban, and trade secret identification continues to bedevil the federal bench:

Noteworthy Defend Trade Secret Act and other federal decisions, articles and posts:

  • The mammoth jury verdict against Goodyear Tire & Rubber has been set aside. Readers will recall that punitive damages accounted for $62.1 million of the $65 million award, which I predicted would result in a remittitur reducing them under Ohio law. However, U.S. District Court Judge Sara Lioi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio went a step further and set aside the entire jury verdict, reasoning that CODA Development had not sufficiently identified its trade secrets or that the information did not qualify as a trade secret. (Her opinion can be found at CODA Dev. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.) Frankly, this was a stunning ruling, as Judge Lioi could have directed out these claims at trial and avoided the verdicts altogether, or she could have granted Goodyear’s motion for summary judgment on the same grounds last year. In her ruling, Judge Lioi defended her decision to dismiss the claims now, noting that she had expressed concern about the claims at trial and reserved the right to dismiss them later. Unfortunately, Judge Lioi’s ruling may encourage defendants to repeatedly challenge identification at every stage of the litigation and trial.
  • Other federal courts are requiring the identification of trade secrets with greater particularity at different junctures of litigation, as they grapple with whether the information before them deserves protection. In Dental Services v. Miller, a Seattle federal court denied a request for temporary restraining order, finding that the plaintiff had failed to provide “sufficient detail to establish a trade secret.” And in United Source One, Inc. v. Frank, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a motion for a default judgment because the plaintiff failed to sufficiently describe two of the four trade secrets at issue in that case.
  • Plaintiffs frequently insist that there should be a presumption of irreparable harm when they are seeking an injunction. Not surprisingly, both the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Second Circuit and the Fifth Circuit have recently rejected those requests. In JTH Tax, LLC d/b/a Liberty Tax Service v. Agnant, the Second Circuit rejected a franchisor’s argument that a stipulation of irreparable harm in its franchise agreement created that presumption; see Davis Gilbert’s Neal Klausner’s post on that ruling. And in Direct Biologics L.L.C. v. McQueen, the Fifth Circuit held that courts applying Texas law can decline to apply a presumption of irreparable injury when there is no independent proof of harm. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of that presumption, holding that not only did the employer fail to produce any evidence that the former employee disclosed or used its confidential information but that the evidence in fact showed the exact opposite (question: what good is a presumption if you have to also show proof?). For more on that opinion, see McDermott Will & Emery’s Alexander Piala’s post for Lexology and Eron Reid’s post for Seyfarth Shaw’s Trading Secrets Blog.
  • A mistrial was declared in another high-profile trade secret case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after the jury acknowledged it was deadlocked over the claims before it. In that case, Masimo Corp. is seeking $1.8 billion in damages against Apple, as well as co-ownership of 5 Apple pulse oximetry patents that Masimo said use its technology. The case has already generated a number of noteworthy opinions, including one addressing the issue of separating an employee’s general skill and knowledge from trade secret information.
  • Questions over ownership of key trade secrets can derail a request for an injunction, as a plaintiff is learning in a New Jersey federal court. In JRM Construction Management, Inc. v. Plescia, the defendant was able to sufficiently dispute whether the trade secrets in question–Excel templates used to estimate and prepare final budgets for client project bids–were created by another company in the late 1990s. The defendants also challenged the confidentiality of the information because it was shared with customers who didn’t sign NDAs. Given these disputes over the central issues in the lawsuit, District Court Judge Evelyn Padin held that an injunction was premature and that “robust discovery” was needed.
  • Late to discover that a former employee may have used your trade secrets in a patent application? Then you should check out Robins Kaplan’s Sharon Roberg-Perez’s article for IAM analyzing a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for Delaware. In Illumina Inc v Guardant Health, et al., the court found the former employer Illumina had presented sufficient evidence of fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of limitations. The court found that there was evidence that former employees had taken steps to conceal their activities with regard to their new company Guardant, including anonymously incorporating the company when they were still Illumina employees. Moreover, according to Sharon, Guardant had removed the names of one of Illumina’s former employees from the applications prior to their issuance as patents.
  • Delaying your request for a preliminary injunction for 6 months because of discovery disputes can undermine the urgency of your request and claim of irreparable injury, at least according the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In Partners Insight, LLC v. Gill, Judge Sheri Polster Chappel found this delay, coupled with waiting for 5 months to file the lawsuit, doomed the plaintiff’s request for an injunction.
  • A challenge to an NDA on the grounds that it was facially overbroad was rejected as premature by Judge Pamela Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In AB Pratt & Co. v. Bridgeport Group, LLC, Judge Barker rejected a motion to dismiss the NDA and other claims, reasoning that any analysis of the scope and breadth of the NDA would involve a factually-intensive inquiry inappropriate at the motion to dismiss stage.
  • Looking for a primer on DTSA caselaw in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit? Then check out Houston Harbaugh’s Henry Sneath’s post for JDSupra.

Continue Reading Monthly Wrap Up (May 12, 2023): Noteworthy Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Decisions, Posts and Articles