Search maine

Blue pen on a non compete contract. Noncompete contract is an agreement between employee and employer, not to enter into competition in subsequence business effort. Legal concept.
Blue pen, a gun or a pistol on a non compete contract. Noncompete contract is an agreement between employee and employer, not to enter into competition in subsequence business effort. Legal concept.

As we reported at the end of February, Maine’s House of Representatives voted for a non-compete ban that would have invalidated virtually all such agreements in the state. In March, the Senate passed the bill, sending it to Governor Mills’s desk. Despite what looked like another victory for opponents of non-competes, Governor Mills vetoed the proposed ban, just as Governor Hochul of New York recently did.

In her veto, Governor Mills said that she vetoed the bill because she was not convinced that non-competes—which are already subject to statutory restrictions under Maine law—are a major problem. Mills further stated that non-competes can be “critical tools to prevent employees from taking unfair advantage of their former employers.” Notably, Mills also pointed out that the FTC is expected to announce a new rule regarding non-competes soon, and thus it would be “ill-advised” for Maine to weigh in at this time. While the legislature could overrule the governor’s veto with a two-thirds vote, it currently does not appear that proponents of the ban have the votes to do so.

So for now, reasonable non-competes are safe in Vacationland. We expect a final rule to be announced by the FTC any day now, so stay tuned on more developments on this page.

mark-olsen-DAtknt95-4U-unsplash

It should come as no surprise to readers of our blog that restrictive covenants are facing significant headwinds. The last decade or so has seen significant limitations on such agreements—mainly non-competes, but also other restrictive covenants such as customer and employee non-solicits and even non-disclosure agreements. These limitations—or proposed limitations—have come in a variety of forms; for example, many states have enacted so-called low-wage bans and choice of law and forum restrictions. They’ve also come from several corners: state legislatures (although not all have been successful), the FTC (which is expected to announce a final rule in April), the NLRB, and good ole’ fashioned court decisions.

Less than 5 years ago, Maine joined the fun by limiting the use of non-competes substantially. Now, the legislature is looking to take it even farther. Yesterday, the House of Representatives of the state lovingly known as “Vacationland” voted to send the vast majority of non-competes on a permanent vacation, assuming colleagues in the Senate and the governor agree.

Specifically, where Maine’s previous law limited the use of non-competes to those earning wages above 400% of the federal poverty level, H.P. 951 would amend the 2019 law to ban all non-competes in the employment context. The very limited exceptions to the ban are as follows:

(A) A seller of a business in this State may be bound by a noncompete agreement prohibiting the seller from opening a competing business in the same geographic area as the business that was sold;

(B) A shareholder in a limited liability company organized under the laws of this State may be bound by a noncompete agreement if the shareholder sells or disposes of all of the shareholder’s shares; or

(C) A member of a partnership organized under the laws of this State may be bound by a noncompete agreement if the partnership is dissolved.

The bill would also invalidate any non-compete between an out-of-state employer and a Maine resident, and it would further invalidate an out-of-state choice of law “if it violates [Maine’s] public policy” as set forth in the new bill. Finally, H.P. 951 dictates that the Department of Labor shall create a poster containing the non-compete laws, which employers must post in a “central workplace location,” and must be printed “in a minimum font size, as determined by the Department of Labor, in accordance with provisions of law governing disability-related accommodations.” Like the current law, the bill states that an employer who violates its provisions commits a civil violation, for which a minimum fine of $5,000 “may be adjudged,” and further notes that the Department of Labor has the authority to impose such fines.

It remains to be seen if the Maine Senate will vote in favor of H.P. 951, and if Governor Mills will sign it into law. Some good news for employers with workers in Maine is that should the bill become law, it will only apply to agreements “entered into or renewed” (my emphasis) on or after its effective date. In the meantime, while we wait to hear more, such employers may want to ask their key Maine employees to sign appropriate restrictive covenants agreements, if they haven’t already.

On June 28, 2019, Governor Mills signed LD 733, An Act To Promote Keeping Workers in Maine, into law.  The Act places limits on non-compete agreements and bans restrictive employment agreements.

Non-Compete Agreements

The Act defines a non-compete agreement as one restricting the employee “from working in the same or similar profession or in a specified geographic area for a certain period of time following termination of employment.” Continue Reading Maine Governor Restricts Restrictive Covenants

explore all that the world has to offer...
Morgan Lane, Unsplash

In the first quarter of 2026, state legislatures have continued to limit the use of restrictive covenants with employees, with the most industry-focused limitations once again being in health care.

This post tracks recent changes in non-compete law for Q1 2026 throughout the country, provides key takeaways, and maps out the current landscape.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  1. Washington effectively banned all non-compete agreements, including in the health care industry. 
  2. Virginia enacted a new law prohibiting the enforcement of non-compete agreements when an employee is terminated without cause unless the employer provides severance or other monetary payment.  The legislature also passed legislation which will effectively ban non-compete agreements with health care professions, and is now weighing recommendations from the governor.
  3. Utah enacted legislation prohibiting non-compete agreements with health care workers, and
  4. Montana expanded its prohibition on non-compete agreements with healthcare providers to include any physicians.   

CURRENT LANDSCAPE

The landscape regarding permissibility of medical non-compete agreements for health care providers has shifted considerably since June 2025:

STATE LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

Washington

  • The Washington legislature passed H.B. 1155 on March 23, 2026.[1]  The new law, which is effective on June 30, 2027, bans all noncompetition covenants with Washington-based workers and businesses.  Moreover, employers must make a “reasonable effort” to provide their current and former employees with written notice that current noncompete agreements are now void and unenforceable by October 1, 2027.  The new law also expands the definition of “noncompetition covenants” to include agreements that require an individual to return, repay, or forfeit any right, benefit, or compensation with limited exceptions for educational expenses.  Narrower categories of non-solicitation agreements are still permissible under the new law, provided the employee established or substantially developed a relationship during their employment and the agreement expires 18 months after separation.

Virginia

  • Virginia enacted a new law which bars enforcement of non-compete agreements against employees (health care or otherwise) discharged without cause unless the employer provides severance benefits or monetary payment.  The employer must disclose the severance benefits or monetary payment upon execution of the non-compete.[2]  This new law also expands rights to sue for violations to all employees.  This law will not effect agreements entered into, amended, or renewed before the law’s effective date of July 1, 2026.
  • The Virginia legislature passed a law which would broadly prohibit any employer from entering into, enforcing, or threatening to enforce a non-compete agreement with a health care professional.  This law defines a “health care professional” as any person licensed, registered, or certified by the Borad of Medicine, Nursing, Counseling, Optometry, Psychology, or Social Work.  On April 11, 2026, Governor Spanberger proposed an amendment to a provision in the bill regarding non-solicitation agreements which would permit providers to inform patients of the provider’s new contact information and patients’ right to choose a provider.  The legislature will consider this recommendation when it reconvenes on April 22nd.  If passed, the bills will be sent to the governor for signature who has an additional 30 days to sign the bills.

Utah

  • Effective May 6, 2026, employers may no longer enter into non-compete agreements with health care workers.  Additionally, the new legislation voids non-solicitation agreements that prevent health care workers from informing patients of their current or future workplace.  The legislation defines a “health care worker” as an individual licensed and practicing in a wide range of clinical professions, including doctors, nurses, psychologists, and mental health counselors.

Montana

  • Montana continued to expand its law prohibiting non-compete agreements with certain health care providers.  Effective January 1, 2026, Montana now prohibits non-compete agreements with any physician.  Previously, non-competes were previously prohibited for psychologists, social workers, and enumerated categories of mental health counselors.

California

  • New legislation aimed at curbing the influence of private equity groups and hedge funds in health care went into effect on January 1, 2026.  The new legislation broadly bans contractual clauses prohibiting a provider from competing with a medical or dental practice if the provider is terminated or resigns from all contracts involving the management of a physician or dental practice and private equity groups or hedge funds.  The practical effect of the new law will likely be negligible, as California has effectively banned most non-compete agreements for decades.

New Threshold Shifts

Compensation thresholds continue to shift, with Colorado, the District of Columbia, Maine, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia updating eligibility levels for employees who can be bound by restrictive covenants.

Pending Legislation

Some states whose legislatures are still in session have pending legislation which, if passed, will affect noncompete agreements with healthcare providers in Iowa and Maine.  Most notably though, the Virginia legislature will consider the governor’s recommendation to the legislature’s effective ban on non-compete agreements with health care professions when it reconvenes on April 22nd.  Stay tuned for another update this summer as the landscape continues to shift.

[1] See our earlier full coverage on this new law.

[2] See or earlier full coverage of recent legislation in Virginia here. 

Washington State Capitol / Washington
Nils Huenerfuerst, Unsplash

Washington State has long taken a skeptical view of noncompetition agreements—and that skepticism is now on the brink of becoming a complete ban. Both chambers of the Legislature have approved Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1155, and the bill now awaits Governor Bob Ferguson’s signature, which is widely expected.

If signed, the law will dramatically reshape Washington’s restrictive covenant landscape. It would also position Washington State within a growing national trend to prohibit or sharply limit noncompetition agreements. California has long been the most prominent example, banning employment noncompetes for decades. North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Minnesota have also enacted complete bans. Several other states have adopted significant restrictions on the use of noncompetes, including Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

Here’s what employers need to know.

Legislative Intent to Ban Noncompetition Agreements Entirely

ESHB 1155 begins by revisiting the Legislature’s earlier efforts to regulate restrictive covenants. The bill acknowledges that while Washington took “a critical step forward” in 2019 by banning noncompetition covenants for lower‑wage earners, “this did not go far enough.” The new findings section declares the Legislature’s intent “to ban noncompetition covenants for all Washington‑based workers and businesses.” This explicit statement makes clear that the policy goal is full elimination of noncompete agreements in the state.

Nonsolicitation Agreements Narrowed but Still Permitted

Importantly, the bill does not prohibit nonsolicitation agreements. Instead, it clarifies that such agreements remain lawful but must be “narrowly construed.” The legislation also revises the statutory definition to specify that a permissible nonsolicitation agreement may prohibit an employee, after termination, from soliciting co‑workers or from soliciting customers, clients, patients, or prospects to shift business away from the employer—but only when the employee established or substantially developed the relationship during their employment and only for up to 18 months following separation. The bill further states that any agreement restricting a former employee from accepting or transacting business with customers is not considered a valid nonsolicitation agreement.

Expansion of What Counts as a Noncompetition Agreement

The bill expands what qualifies as a noncompetition covenant. Newly included within the definition are agreements between performers and performance spaces (or scheduling intermediaries) that restrict lawful performances, as well as any contractual provision requiring a performer or employee to return, repay, or forfeit compensation or benefits as a consequence of engaging in a lawful business or profession. These expanded definitions prevent employers from using indirect or creative mechanisms to accomplish what traditional noncompete agreements once did.

Carveouts That Remain in Effect

Several longstanding carveouts continue under the revised statute. Noncompetition agreements do not include nonsolicitation agreements, confidentiality agreements, covenants prohibiting the use or disclosure of trade secrets or inventions, or covenants tied to the sale or purchase of a business in which the individual has at least a one‑percent ownership interest. The bill also adds a new carveout for written agreements requiring employees to repay out‑of‑pocket educational expenses, so long as the agreement expires within the first 18 months of employment, repayment is pro‑rated, and the repayment obligation is waived if separation occurs for “good cause” as defined in RCW 50.20.050.

All Noncompetition Agreements Will Become Void and Unenforceable

Once the bill takes effect—expected June 30, 2027, pursuant to legislative summaries—all noncompetition covenants will become void and unenforceable, regardless of when they were signed. Employers will also violate the statute if they attempt to enforce, threaten to enforce, or represent that an employee is subject to a noncompetition covenant. Even attempting to enter into such a covenant will constitute a violation.

Employer Notice Obligations

By October 1, 2027, employers must make reasonable efforts to provide written notice to all current and former employees and independent contractors whose noncompetition covenants would otherwise still be in effect, informing them that their covenants are void and unenforceable under the new law. This requirement will necessitate a review of personnel records and contract archives to identify anyone subject to legacy noncompetition clauses.

Clarification of Private Right of Action and Penalties

ESHB 1155 also clarifies who may bring a claim under the statute. Instead of allowing claims to persons “aggrieved by a noncompetition covenant,” the bill permits any person “aggrieved by a violation of this chapter” to bring a cause of action. A violation requires payment of the greater of actual damages or a statutory penalty of $5,000, plus attorneys’ fees and costs—exposure that can multiply quickly for employers with multiple affected workers.

Key Takeaways for Employers

All noncompetition agreements in Washington State will soon become void once Governor Ferguson signs ESHB 1155. Given the strong legislative push, employers should anticipate a near‑term effective ban. While nonsolicitation agreements remain permissible, the narrowed definition means employers must review and likely revise existing templates to avoid inadvertently creating an unlawful noncompetition provision. Employers should also prepare for potential liability, as violations may result in significant statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides this information as a service to clients and other friends for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or relied on as legal advice or to create a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking advice from their professional advisers. 

explore all that the world has to offer...
Morgan Lane, Unsplash

With the FTC Ban on non-competes essentially dead in the Courts of Appeal, various states and agencies have taken up the mantle to further limit or expand the use of restrictive covenants for certain populations in 2025. 

Below is a list of major legislative changes, judicial decisions, and agency actions at the state and federal level affecting non-compete agreements in the first four months of 2025.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  1. Compensation thresholds continue to shift, with states like Colorado, D.C., Maine, and Washington updating eligibility levels.
  2. Healthcare remains a focus: several states are restricting non-competes for physicians, nurses, and other providers.
  3. States are moving faster than federal agencies, creating a patchwork of evolving standards.
  4. Employers should proactively audit existing agreements for compliance and consult legal counsel before enforcement.

STATE LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

Arkansas

  • On March 4, 2025, Arkansas amended its non-compete law to prohibit and void non-compete agreements that restrict the right of a physician to practice within their field.  The law takes effect 90 days after the legislative session ends (May 5, 2025).  (S.B. 139 [arkleg.state.ar.us]; Eff. est. 8/3/25)

Colorado

  • Colorado updated the highly compensated employee threshold: non-competes may only be entered into with employees earning $127,091 or more and covenants not to solicit customers may only be entered into with an employee earning approx. $76,254.60.  (7 CCR 1103-14 [cdle.colorado.gov]; Eff. 1/1/25)
  • On April 21, 2025, the Colorado legislature passed a bill that excludes certain doctors, dentists, and nurses from the highly compensated workers exemption to the state’s non-compete and customer non-solicitation laws. Covered healthcare providers may not be prohibited from disclosing their new professional contact information to their patients.  Also, the bill allows a non-compete agreement to include the recovery of certain recruiting expenses (e.g., relocation expenses, signing bonuses), so long as the employer’s recovery decreases proportionally over the course of not more than 3 years.  Colorado’s Governor has not signed the bill, but if enacted, it will take effect 90 days after adjournment of the legislative session on August 6, 2025.  (S.B. 83)

District of Columbia

  • In early February 2025, the Consumer Price Index for the Washington D.C. Metro area dropped from 2.8% to 2.7%.  Consequently, restrictions on non-compete clauses now apply to employees who earn $158,364 or less and medical specialists earning $263,939 or less.  (Index [bls.gov]; Update [does.dc.gov]; Eff. 1/1/25)

Florida

  • On April 24, 2025, the Florida legislature passed a bill governing non-compete agreements between employers and “covered employees,” defined as individuals, other than health care practitioners, earning a salary greater than twice the annual mean wage for their respective county. “Covered non-competes agreements” between covered employees and their employers will be required to be in writing, last no longer than 4 years, and the agreement must define the geographic area in which the employee agrees not to provide services similar to those provided to the employer during the preceding 3 years or in a role in which it is reasonably likely that the employee would use confidential information or customer relationships of the employer.  If the bill is signed into law, it will take effect on July 1, 2025.  (H.B. 1219 [flsenate.gov])

Illinois

  • Non-compete and non-solicitation provisions entered into after January 1, 2025 are unenforceable if the provision is likely to result in an increase in cost or difficulty for any veteran or first responder seeking mental health services from a mental health professional licensed in Illinois.  Effective February 7, 2025, Illinois enacted a law that revises the definition of “first responder” to include persons formerly employed as emergency medical services personnel, firefighters, and law enforcement officers. (S.B. 2737 [ilga.gov]; H.B. 2840 [ilga.gov]; Eff. 1/1/25 and 2/7/25)
  • Non-competes and non-solicitation agreements with a person employed in construction are void and illegal, regardless of whether the employee is covered by a collective bargaining agreement.  (S.B. 2770 [ilga.gov]; Eff. 1/1/25)

Kansas

  • On April 8, 2025, Kansas enacted a law amending its restraint of trade statute.  The amended law (1) directs the judiciary to modify contracts that are overbroad or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect a business’s business interest, and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interests; (2) creates a presumption of enforceability for written non-solicitation agreements between a business owner and a business entity, including employee and material contact customer non-solicitation agreements, that does not last more than four years following the end of the owner’s business relationship with the business entity; and (3) creates a presumption of enforceability for written non-solicitation agreements with employees that lasts no more than 2 years following employment, if the agreements prohibit either (a) solicitation of employees, if it seeks to protect trade secrets or customer or supplier relationships, goodwill, or loyalty or (b) solicitation of material contact customers.  (S.B. 241 [kslegislature.gov]; Eff. 7/1/25)

Louisiana

  • Louisiana added restrictions to non-compete agreements with physicians that limit their ability to practice medicine, excluding certain physicians in rural hospitals or under certain federal contracts in rural parishes.  Non-competes with primary care physicians may not exceed 3 years, or 5 years for all other physicians, beginning from the effective date of the initial contract.  Agreements must include qualified parish-specific geographic limitations, and subsequent agreements between the employer and physician executed after the initial restricted period may not contain a non-compete provision.  (S.B. 165 [legis.la.gov]; Eff. 1/1/25)

Maine

  • The non-compete threshold was updated: employers may not enter into a non-compete agreement with an employee earning at or below $62,600 per year, which is based on the 2025 Poverty Guidelines published on January 15, 2025.  (HHS Poverty Guidelines [aspe.hhs.gov]; Eff. 1/1/25)

Maryland

  • Effective June 1, 2024, Maryland expanded its non-compete statute to prohibit non-compete agreements with healthcare providers who provide direct care to patients and earn $350,000 or less in annual compensation, as well as veterinary practitioners and technicians.  Noncompete and conflict of interest provision for those covered under the exemption may not exceed one year and a ten mile radius.  The prohibition applies to agreements executed on or after July 1, 2025.  (H.B. 1388 [mgaleg.maryland.gov])

Montana

  • On April 16, 2025, Montana amended its non-compete law, expanding its prohibition on non-competes to include naturopathic physicians, registered nurses, advance practiced nurses, and physician assistants.  (H.B. 198 [bills.legmt.gov]; Eff. 4/16/25)

Oregon

  • In late January 2025, Oregon increased the salary threshold for non-compete agreements from $113,241 to $116,427.  (Announcement [oregon.gov]; Eff. 1/1/25)

Pennsylvania

  • Pennsylvania prohibits non-competes with health care practitioners entered into after January 1, 2025.  Non-compete covenants are defined as agreements between employers and health care practitioners that have the effect of impeding the health care practitioners’ ability to continue treating patients or accepting new patients, either independently or with a competing employer.  Patients with an ongoing relationship with the practitioner of 2 or more years must be notified of their practitioner’s departure within 30 days.  (H.B. 1633 [legis.state.pa.us]; Eff. 1/1/25)

Rhode Island

  • The non-compete threshold for low-wage employees is increased to $39,125, which is based on the 2025 Poverty Guidelines published on January 15, 2025.  (Poverty Guidelines [aspe.hhs.gov]; Eff. 1/1/25)

Virginia

  • Virginia updated its average weekly wage for 2025 to $1,463.10.  Employers are prohibited from entering into non-compete agreements with “low wage employees” (including independent contractors) earning less than $1,463.10 per week.  (Announcement [doli.virginia.gov]; Eff. 1/1/25)
  • On March 24, 2025, Virginia  enacted a law that expands the definition of “low wage worker” under its non-compete law to include any person, regardless of weekly earnings, who is entitled to overtime under federal law for working in excess of 40 hours per week.  The bill does not apply to agreements entered into or renewed prior to July 1, 2025.  (S.B. 1218 [lis.virginia.gov]; Eff. 7/1/25)

Washington

Wyoming

  • On March 19, 2025, Wyoming enacted a law that voids non-compete agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2025, unless it relates to (1) executive and management personnel, their professional staff, and officers; (2) rights of a physician to practice medicine upon termination; (3) recovering qualified expenses related to relocating, education, and training; (4) the sale of a business/asset; and (5) trade secret protections.  Physicians may share their new contact information to existing patients with a rare disorder.  (S.F. 107 [wyoleg.gov]; Eff. 7/1/25)

FEDERAL AND JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS

U.S. Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit

  • On January 22, 2025, the 7th Circ. held that courts do not review forfeiture-for-competition provisions for reasonableness if the employee voluntarily terminated their employment.  (LKQ Corp. v. Rutledge [media.ca7.uscourts.gov])

Washington Supreme Court

  • On January 23, 2025, the Washington State Supreme Court held that the state of Washington’s moonlighting law protects employees who earn less than twice the state minimum wage from unreasonable restrictions on obtaining supplemental employment, and permits employers to impose only narrow restrictions consistent with the employee’s duty of loyalty. Consequently, a non-compete agreement with a low-wage worker cannot bar employees from providing both direct and indirect assistance to competitors.  (David and Springer v. Freedom Vans, LLC. [courts.wa.gov]; Seyfarth Post)

NLRB

FTC

  • On February 26, 2025, the FTC announced that it created a joint task force that will focus on rooting out and prosecuting anti-competitive labor practices, including the use of non-competes, no poach, no-solicitation, and no-hire agreements.  (Announcement [ftc.gov]; Seyfarth Post)

Stay tuned for continued developments as the legal landscape for restrictive covenants continues to evolve throughout 2025.

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 of employee training repayment agreements. Meanwhile, the governors of New York and Maine recently vetoed legislation that would have banned most employee non-compete agreements.

On June 20, 2024, the Rhode Island legislature sent bill H8059/S2436 to Governor Dan McKee. The proposed Rhode Island bill not only would have prohibited new non-competes, but also would have prohibited the enforcement of existing non-competes with senior executives. Governor McKee vetoed the bill. In his veto message to the legislature, Governor McKee explained that the proposed bill goes beyond the proposed FTC rule, which does not prohibit enforcement of existing non-competes with senior executives and would put Rhode Island businesses at a national disadvantage, particularly if the FTC were to amend or repeal its non-compete ban while Rhode Island’s more onerous ban remained in place. He further explained that while his “Administration is supportive of setting reasonable limits on the use of non-competes, [the proposed bill] did not address the valid concerns raised by the local business community… and makes Rhode Island an outlier as compared to other states.” 

Even in the absence of a bill broadly prohibiting non-competes, Rhode Island continues to have on its books statutes that limit the use of some non-competes. For example, in 2019, Rhode Island passed legislation restricting the use of non-compete agreements with non-exempt employees under the FLSA, students participating in an internship or short-term employment; employees aged 18 or younger; and low-wage workers (defined as earning 250% or less of the federal poverty level). And, on June 17, 2024, just a few days before the legislature sent him bill H8059/S2436, Governor McKee signed legislation that bans the use of non-competes with advanced practice registered nurses except for agreements in connection with the sale of business.

On July 3, 2024, we expect to receive a ruling in the Ryan lawsuit on plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin the FTC’s non-compete ban pending disposition of the litigation on the merits. It remains to be seen whether the Rhode Island legislature will try again, with proposed limits on the enforceability of non-competes that are scaled down or more in line with the FTC rule.

trade secrets litigation

Many restrictive covenant agreements rely on various abbreviations to streamline the contractual language, including most notably the use of “Company” as a stand-in for the employer’s name. Additionally, these agreements often state that they inure to the benefit of the employer’s parent, subsidiaries, and other affiliates. However, a recent case in federal court demonstrates the importance of carefully defining terms to best protect the employer’s legitimate business interests.

Continue Reading “What’s in a Name?” A Shortened Restrictive Covenant Duration, Perhaps

Robert Milligan, Seyfarth partner and co-chair of the firm’s Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes group, and associate Alex Meier recently attended the Sedona Conference on Trade Secrets (Working Group 12) in Denver, Colorado. Working Group 12 seeks to aid judges and practitioners in developing consensus-based guidelines for managing trade secret litigation and protecting trade secrets. Continue Reading Recap! The Sedona Conference on Trade Secrets (Working Group 12) in Denver