covenant not to compete

Subscribe to covenant not to compete via RSS
Question,Mark,Circle,Around,Hand,Drawn,Concept,Frame

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

Happy,Young,Newsboy,Holds,Out,A,Newspaper,With,Copy,Space

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

Happy,Young,Newsboy,Holds,Out,A,Newspaper,With,Copy,Space

Here are last month’s noteworthy cases, article and posts, as well as a few other cases that I didn’t have room for in last month’s wrap up post:

Noteworthy Defend Trade Secret Act and Other Federal Cases, Posts and Articles:

  • Can an employee be prohibited from communicating with his/her new employer’s lawyers? If there is a risk that they might share details of other trade secret disputes, they can, at least according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In Stryker Emp. Co., LLC v. Abbas, Case No. 22-1563 (6th Cir. Feb. 16, 2023) (Clay, Bush, JJ.; Sutton, C.J.), the Sixth Circuit affirmed an injunction enforcing, among other things, a provision limiting the employee, Abbas, from communicating with his employer’s (Alphatec) counsel. Stryker was involved in three other cases against Alphatec involving other former Stryker employees, and the Sixth Circuit found that Abbas “was privy to confidential information that if disclosed to Alphatec or Alphatec’s counsel, would detrimentally affect Stryker” in those other lawsuits. McDermott Will & Emery’s Tessa Kroll has a summary of the decision. I have to confess this decision seems extreme, given that a standard confidentiality order would achieve the narrow purpose sought–protection of confidential information involving a pending litigation–and the breadth of this ruling may unfairly impinge on the ability of counsel to engage in joint defense communications.
  • The winner of this month’s Gladys Kravitz Award is EmergencyMD, LLC, an employer that couldn’t resist peering into the Gmail account of its former employee. That snooping led to a viable claim under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In Carson v. EmergencyMD, LLCC, et al. the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of the former employee’s SCA claim, finding genuine issues of fact existed over whether the defendants’ accessing of the emails was unintentional and whether EmergencyMD’s policies authorized the defendants’ obtaining and disclosing their former employee’s emails.
  • How much risk does a cannabis-loving employee truly pose to his employer’s trade secrets? Not very much, according to Judge Kenneth Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in Microban Int’l Ltd. v. William Bartley Kennedy. The employee had been terminated for ingesting a marijuana gummy bear before an important meeting, and Judge Bell found the former employee’s “hollow threats” to share his employer’s confidential information uttered during severance negotiations were insufficient for an injunction.
  • Illinois proudly claims the title of the Land of Lincoln. But it has another honor that it doesn’t boast about nearly as much. It is the birthplace of the infamous inevitable disclosure doctrine (see PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond), a doctrine much maligned by scholars and lawyers representing employees in trade secret cases. Fortunately, the doctrine may be close to expiring as a recent case, Petrochoice, LLC v. Amherdt, suggests. Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected the former employer’s inevitable disclosure argument, ruling that the information the former employer was attempting to limit (the employee Amherdt’s “level” of performance of his “sales skills”) “is precisely the sort of sales acumen that employees are permitted to take with them.”
  • When can a new employer be vicariously liable for its newly-hired employee’s alleged trade secret misappropriation? In Alert Enterprises, Inc. v. Rana, Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed claims by a former employer to include a competitor, SoloInsight, who hired a former employee who had downloaded over 2,600 of Alert Enterprises’ files and deleted other information to cover up those and other transfers. SoloInsight represented that none of those files had been uploaded to its system, which the plaintiff had to acknowledge in its complaint. On this record, Judge Scott Corley found there were no plausible claims of use or disclosure by SoloInsight and that it could not be vicariously liable for conduct that occurred before it hired that employee.
  • Many of the decisions ordering early trade secret identification fail to provide guidance on how a plaintiff should identify those trade secrets with particularity. The reason for this is obvious: the descriptions themselves include allegedly proprietary information and therefore the key portions of the court’s analysis are frequently under seal. This reality means there aren’t many decisions to assist trade secret owners on what qualifies as a defensible identification. However, in Carlyle Interconnect Tech. Inc. v. Foresight Finishing LLC, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona provides that rare roadmap. In that case, Judge Steven Logan oversaw a discovery dispute over the identification of the plaintiff’s plating process trade secrets, providing a fine explanation of the factual context at issue, and ultimately holding that the plaintiff must “identify[] the steps in the process and explain[] how those steps make their method or process unique.”
  • Consistent with the trend that I noted last month, federal courts continue to deny motions to dismiss trade secret claims but remain willing to narrow cases by getting rid of other tort claims. Check out the latest case, PRO MINERAL, LLC v. Marietta, Dist., where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas kept the trade secret and breach of contract claims but applied Texas’ preemption doctrine to dismiss claims for breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy.
  • It must be frustrating for trade secret owners seeking an injunction before courts bound by decisions issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Why you ask? The fact that they have to contend with the ill-conceived Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corporation, 559 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) decision. For those unfamiliar with that opinion, the Second Circuit inexplicably ruled that irreparable injury did not exist in situations where a competitor was simply using trade secrets; the Second Circuit reasoned that the risk of further disclosure was not present because the misappropriating defendant and trade secret owner were both aligned on the issue of disclosure, and neither would therefore benefit from further disclosure. Of course, this rationale runs counter to a central tenet of ownership–namely, the owner’s right to exclude a competitor from using its IP. In Amimon, Inc. v. Shenzen Hollyland Tech Co. Ltd., et al., Judge Edgardo Ramos relied on Faiveley‘s holding and denied Amimon’s request for a preliminary injunction, ruling that it could recover money damages for the alleged misappropriation which was confined to the use of the trade secrets by defendants. It should be noted that Amimon did itself no favors, as its irreparable injury arguments were based on damage to its reputation and the threat that defendants might further share the trade secrets, neither of which were supported by sufficient facts.

Continue Reading Monthly Wrap Up (April 4, 2023): Noteworthy Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Cases, Posts and Developments

Delaware, where more than half of U.S. public companies are incorporated, has done much to drive the development of corporate governance.  As a result, “Delaware’s courts have led the way, which is not surprising given the crucial role the state’s judiciary plays under what Chief Justice Leo Strine has described as the ‘Delaware Model’ of corporation law.” Look no further than the Delaware Court of Chancery’s own website which says it is “widely recognized as the nation’s preeminent forum for the determination of disputes involving the internal affairs of the thousands upon thousands of Delaware corporations and other business entities through which a vast amount of the world’s commercial affairs is conducted.” Consequently, rulings by the Delaware Chancery Court are highly influential and may impact the reasoning of other state and federal courts. Three recent noncompete decisions by the Chancery Court potentially signal a significant shift against noncompetes involving sophisticated commercial parties.Continue Reading Are Three Decisions a Trend? The Delaware Chancery Court’s Turn Against Noncompetes

Happy,Young,Newsboy,Holds,Out,A,Newspaper,With,Copy,Space

Here are the noteworthy cases, articles and posts from last month, along with several DTSA cases from January that didn’t make it into last month’s update:

Notable Defend Trade Secrets Act and Federal Trade Secret Developments, Opinions and Posts:

  • For those interested in shaping an important trade secrets resource for the federal bench, Berkeley Professor Peter Menell is looking for comments to the Trade Secret Case Management Judicial Guide (TSJCMG), which is intended as a “go-to” resource for judges in these cases. In a post for Patently-O, Peter describes how the TSCMJG came into existence. He also discusses the unique qualities of trade secret cases that prompted the TSCMJG, including (1) the challenges of trade secret identification; (2) the highly emotional nature of trade secret cases, and (3) the interplay between criminal and civil proceedings in these cases. A number of trade secret luminaries (Vicki Cundiff, Jim Pooley, Peter Toren, Elizabeth Rowe, Rebecca Wexler and Professor Menell) have already contributed to its drafting, and for those interested in providing comments, please reach out to Peter at pmenell@law.berkeley.edu (please note he is working on a tight timeline).
  • Disputes over inventorship are not confined to patent cases and often arise in trade secrets cases too. However, that question does not guarantee federal subject matter jurisdiction, as the defendants learned in a decision remanding an ownership dispute removed to federal court back to state court. In Calvary Indus., Inc. v. Winters, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Judge Timothy Black rejected arguments that a state court declaratory relief action over the ownership of several disputed patent applications involved federal patent or trade secret claims and ruled that it belonged in state court. In particular, Judge Black found that declaratory relief for a correction of ownership under 35 U.S.C. § 256 was premature because no patents had yet issued.
  • Can a pleading citing “information and belief” for its allegations of misappropriation survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)? If the information is solely within the possession of the defendant and the inference is otherwise plausible, the answer is “yes,” according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In Ahern Rentals, Inc. v. EquipmentShare.com, Inc., the Eighth Circuit joined six other federal circuits that found this form of pleading to be sufficient. For more on the decision, check out Scott Lauck’s post on the case for Missouri Lawyers Media.
  • The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently rejected a motion by Amazon to dismiss a complaint accusing Amazon of improperly reverse engineering the artificial intelligence (AI) trade secrets of a vendor. In GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 21-cv-9321, 2023 WL 2051739 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2023), the vendor GateGuard alleged that Amazon was misappropriating GateGuard’s “proprietary security technology that acts as an ‘AI Doorman’ for multifamily residential properties, allowing authorized users to unlock entrances remotely and to monitor activity.” Judge John Koeltl’s sixty-three page opinion focused on, among other things, Gateguard’s terms of service agreement which specifically forbid reverse engineering. For more on the case, check out McGuire Wood’s Trade Secrets Tidbits post by Sarah Holub, Meghaan Madriz, Yasser Madriz and Miles Indest.
  • Staying on the topic of Rule 12(b)(6) motions, during the course of my review of these cases each month, I am seeing a trend by federal courts denying these motions on the trade secret claims but sometimes dismissing other tort claims. This trend is supported by the decisions above, as well as other decisions this past month by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Aristotle Int’l, Inc. v. Acuant, Inc. (a case involving data scraping), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Hardwire, LLC v. Freyssinet Int’l Et Cie, et al. (dismissing Sherman Act claims), and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Sunjoy Indus. Group, Ltd., v. Permasteel, Inc. (dismissing trade dress claims).
  • Looking for ideas for your motion in limine to exclude improper evidence at your next trade secret trial? Then look no further than HP Tuners, LLC v. Cannata, where the U.S. District Court of Nevada ruled on a host of different requests to exclude evidence, including requests under Daubert and other expert challenges, Rule 408 settlement discussions and evidence of the parties’ respective wealth.
  • Never underestimate the power of an accelerated development timetable to create an inference of misappropriation when seeking an injunction. In Palltronics, Inc. v. Paliot Solutions, Inc., Judge Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan was persuaded by the fact that the former employees’ brand-new company “managed to accomplish in one year, what it took Lightning [the former employer] over five years and $25 million in research and development to achieve” and she ruled “[i]t can be inferred that such dramatic progress was possible because Defendant relied on Lightning’s former employees’ knowledge of the trade secrets, processes and other information they gained from working at Lightning to set up its business.”

Continue Reading Monthly Wrap Up (March 12, 2023): Noteworthy Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenant Cases, Developments and Posts

canstockphoto22643000 (002)

The economic carnage unleashed by the COVID-19 virus has disrupted virtually every industry in the United States.  At last count, more than 38 million workers had lost their jobs and made claims for unemployment benefits.  And while states have begun easing restrictions on the ability of many businesses to reopen, it is reasonable to expect there will be further turnover, leading to the departure of many employees to competitors.  Feeling more vulnerable because of the downturn, employers will inevitably look to enforce restrictive covenants, including non-competes and non-solicitation agreements, against those former employees.  How will courts tend to handle requests to enforce restrictive covenants, especially non-competes, in this difficult economy?  One guide may be looking at how they handled similar requests during the last economic downturn in 2008 in the state of Ohio.
Continue Reading Back to the Future: Do Restrictive Covenant Cases from the 2008 Recession Offer Clues to How Courts Will Rule in the Aftermath of COVID 19?

Happy,Young,Newsboy,Holds,Out,A,Newspaper,With,Copy,Space

As you will see, I have changed the format of my monthly wrap up post in two ways.  First, I am going to start including links to noteworthy decisions that I come across or are forwarded to me.  Unfortunately, since neither I nor other bloggers writing in this space can cover everything, this will be a useful feature for those practicing in this area.  Second, I am going to provide more commentary on some posts and cases, in the hope of creating further dialogue on many trade secret and non-compete issues.  Given the hot button nature of some of these issues, I am going to share my thoughts, for whatever they are worth.  Now, on to posts and links from the last month:

Legislative Developments

  • Last week, Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, Chris Murphy and Ron Wyden announced their intention to introduce the Workers Mobility Act (WMA) that would abolish non-competes throughout the United States.  As many of you will recall, Senator Murphy previously introduced a similar bill, the Mobility and Opportunity for Vulnerability Employees Act (MOVE) but that bill stalled on the Senate floor.  Russell Beck has a post with a link to the House and Senate bills, along with his well-reasoned concerns about the breadth and scope of the bills.
  • A blog post about legislation over non-competes wouldn’t be complete if there wasn’t some mention of some activity in Massachusetts.  Key features of the latest bill under serious consideration would limit non-competes to 12 months (unless the employee stole trade secrets or breached his fiduciary duty) and finally adopt the UTSA.  For more details, see Russell Beck’s post in his Fair Competition Blog.
  • Idaho (repealing its recent changes in 2016) and Utah (restricting their use against broadcasters) have recently amended their statutes addressing restrictive covenants.  See Russell Beck again.
  • Colorado has modified its law affecting physician non-competes, carving out protections for physicians treating patients with rare genetic disorders to eliminate any interruption of care for those patients.  Peter Greene summarizes the changes in Epstein Becker’s Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility Blog.

Continue Reading Monthly Wrap Up (May 8, 2018): Noteworthy Trade Secret and Non-Compete Cases, Developments and Posts