Virginia’s Senate Bill 170 (2026 Session) introduces new limitations on the enforceability of restrictive covenants by protecting employees who are terminated without cause. More specifically, the proposed amendment will render any non-compete unenforceable against an employee who was discharged from employment unless severance benefits or other monetary payments are made to the employee. The law is silent as to what
Continue Reading Virginia Moves to Protect Laid Off Workers
Seyfarth has been featured in the World Intellectual Property Review “USA Trade Secrets Rankings” for 2025, which highlights leading legal talent dedicated to trade secrets law across the United States. These rankings spotlight firms and individuals with exceptional strength in litigation, advisory, and transactional work, trusted by leading companies to protect their most valuable intangible assets.
Seyfarth earned
Continue Reading Seyfarth Recognized Again in World IP Review’s 2025 National Trade Secrets Rankings
Just over a month ago, employers throughout the United States breathed a sigh of relief after Judge Ada Brown in the Northern District of Texas issued a summary judgment ruling in the Ryan v. FTC litigation setting aside the FTC’s rule banning the vast majority of non-competes (the “Rule”). In that decision, Judge Brown reasoned—just as she had in her
Continue Reading The Saga’s Not Over – FTC Appeals Florida Court’s Stay of Non-Compete Rule
Once again surprising the country by acting ten days before her own self-appointed deadline, a federal judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling on August 20 in the Ryan v. FTC case setting aside the FTC Rule banning non-competes, and held (quoting Fifth Circuit precedent) that the ruling had “nationwide effect”
Continue Reading Federal Texas Court Sets Aside with “Nationwide Effect” the FTC Rule Banning Non-Competes
This just in: Judge Ada Brown ruled today on the parties’ dueling summary judgment motions – 10 days before her self-imposed deadline to do so – in Ryan LLC v. FTC. Judge Brown granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment while denying the FTC’s motion, determining that the FTC’s rule banning non-competes is an unlawful agency action and must
Continue Reading BREAKING: Federal Judge Rules FTC’s Non-Compete Ban to be Set Aside Nationwide
Yesterday, a third court weighed in on the FTC’s proposed ban on non-competes, set to go into effect on September 4, 2024. Judge Corrigan of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the plaintiff Properties of the Villages, Inc.’s (“POV”) motion to stay the effective date of the rule and preliminarily enjoin its enforcement.
Continue Reading More Bad News for the FTC: Federal Court in Florida Enjoins Enforcement of Non-Compete Ban
Against the backdrop of the FTC’s rule banning non-compete agreements nationwide and the lawsuits challenging that rule, many states have considered legislation narrowing or outright banning non-competes. Minnesota recently followed California, Oklahoma and North Dakota in adopting legislation banning all employment-based non-compete agreements. Washington state adopted additional requirements for using non-competes with its residents. And, Colorado recently limited the use
Continue Reading Rhode Island Governor Vetoes Proposed Non-Compete Ban
Both the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (“DTSA”) and Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“PUTSA”) provide that a defendant may recover its attorneys’ fees if it demonstrates that a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets is brought in “bad faith.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D); 12 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5305(1). But who decides “bad faith” – a
Continue Reading Third Circuit Holds that Judge, Not Jury, May Determine “Bad Faith” for Purposes of Fee Shifting Under DTSA and PUTSA
On May 31, 2024, the Governor of Colorado signed House Bill 24-1324, titled “Attorney General Restrictive Employment Agreements,” putting into place a law to toughen protections for employees who are subject to abusive contracts ostensibly requiring repayment to employers for education and training expenses upon termination of employment, commonly referred to as “TRAPs” (Training Repayment Agreement Provisions). This new
Continue Reading Colorado Amends Non-Compete Law To Address Potential Abuses of Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPS)