The FTC announced yesterday that it was extending the deadline to submit public comments on its proposed rule banning employment non-competes.
With the extension, the FTC will now be accepting comments on the proposed rule until April 19. Originally, the deadline for submitting comments was March 20.
Information on how to submit comments can be found in the Federal Register notice.
On January 4, 2023, the Dallas Court of Appeals in Texas affirmed a summary judgment in a trade secrets physician staffing case that stands as a warning to practitioners regarding (1) what constitutes sufficient damages evidence to survive summary judgment, and (2) whether something can be considered on appeal that has been sealed or subject to a confidentiality agreement.
As our colleagues have previously reported in this blog, on January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) concerning its unprecedented effort to ban all non-compete clauses with workers and to preempt state law on the issue. The NPRM followed just one day after the FTC announced that it had reached a consent settlement with three companies for alleged unfair trade practices by imposing overly burdensome non-compete agreements.
Not surprisingly, the NPRM has sparked a surge of commentary in the legal and business communities and immediately courted controversy. The sole Republican member of the FTC, Commissioner Christine S. Wilson, issued a vigorous dissent, arguing:
In the fifth installment of our 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, Seyfarth attorneys Jesse Coleman, Matt Simmons, and Kevin Green discussed legal developments and trends in Texas trade secret and non-compete law and how it is similar to and diverse from other jurisdictions.
As a conclusion to this webinar, we compiled a summary of takeaways:
Tuesday, September 27, 2022
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Central
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Mountain
10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Pacific
In the fifth installment of our 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series, our team will cover recent legal developments and trends in Texas trade secret and non-compete law and how it
Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar! How and Why Texas Is Different When It Comes to Trade Secrets and Non-Competes
On August 10, 2022, Colorado’s new statute further restricting non-competition and non-solicitation provisions becomes effective. The new law, which passed earlier this year, continues Colorado’s trend toward increased scrutiny of post-employment restrictions and adds Colorado to the growing list of states that restrict the use of out-of-state choice of law and forum provisions in agreements that contain such restrictions.
Continue Reading Colorado Poised to Further Restrict Post-Employment Restrictions
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently set its sights squarely on non-compete agreements in merger transactions, making them ripe for further scrutiny. In a Consent Order issued June 14, 2022, the FTC ordered GPM Investments LLC and its parent company ARKO Corp. to roll back provisions it deemed “anticompetitive” in GPM’s May 2021 acquisition of 60 Express Stop retail fuel stations from Corrigan Oil Company. Under the FTC’s order, ARKO and GPM agreed to limit the non-compete agreement that it imposed on Corrigan, and return five retail fuel stations in several local Michigan markets. This decision comes on the heels of a June 10th statement by the FTC’s Chair Lina M. Khan, joined by Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro M. Bedoya, warning businesses that contract terms in merger agreements that potentially impede fair competition would be highly scrutinized.
Continue Reading FTC Further Scrutinizes Use of Non-Competes in Merger Transactions
On June 17, 2022, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed a lower appellate court’s decision, (which we previously wrote about here), which nixed the plaintiff’s $740 million trade secret win at trial and required the plaintiff to either accept a $201 million breach of contract win (which the defendant decried as “jackpot justice”) or go back to trial on all claims.
Briefly, real estate startup HouseCanary brought suit against Title Source, Inc., now known as Amrock, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA), fraud, and breach of contract. At trial, the jury awarded HouseCanary $740 million on its TUTSA and fraud claims and $201 million on its breach of contract claim. HouseCanary could elect to recover one or the other, and it elected to recover the $740 million. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the trial court decision regarding TUTSA and fraud based on deficiencies in the jury charge. The appellate court then found that the TUTSA, fraud, and breach of contract claims were inseparable, leaving HouseCanary with two options: to retry all of its claims or recover only the $201 million awarded on the breach of contract claim.
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court Confirms that HouseCanary Must Fly Toward a $201 Million Judgment or a Retrial
A federal court in Texas recently provided useful insights on what constitutes “solicitation” by a former employee under that employee’s restrictive covenant with his former employer, and the court provided further insights on what inferences courts will, and will not, draw in favor of a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction based on alleged misappropriation of trade secrets.[1]
The defendant worked for the plaintiff, Sunbelt, for over twenty years, primarily as a salesperson covering institutional customers.[2] As part of his employment, the defendant signed an employment agreement that, among other things, prohibited him from “solicit[ing]” Sunbelt’s customers or competing with Sunbelt within a certain geographic area.[3] He later left to join one of Sunbelt’s competitors. Sunbelt filed suit and sought a preliminary injunction, asserting that the employed had, among other things, solicited Sunbelt’s former customers, worked for Sunbelt’s competitor within the area prohibited by the non-competition agreement, and misappropriated Sunbelt’s trade secrets.[4]
Continue Reading Federal Court Provides Insight on Meaning of “Solicitation” and Plaintiff’s Burden on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Seyfarth partner Jesse Coleman and associate Kevin Green authored an IP Litigator article focused on a recent DTSA/TUTSA lawsuit which involved the public disclosure of alleged trade secret in an expired patent. Read the full article from the March / April 2022 edition of IP Litigator here.
Continue Reading Seyfarth Attorneys Author Article on Texas Trade Secret Lawsuit