Thursday, January 27, 2022
2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Central
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Mountain
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Pacific
In the first installment of the 2022 Trade Secrets Webinar Series,
Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar! 2021 Trade Secrets & Non-Competes Year in Review
This July, several Seyfarth attorneys signed a letter in response to President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. On December 20, 2021, following the FTC’s and DOJ’s virtual workshop on “Making Competition Work: Promoting Competition in the Labor Markets” in early December, Seyfarth partners Dawn Mertineit, Robert Milligan, Kate Perrelli, and Erik Weibust
Continue Reading Seyfarth Partners Sign on to New Letter Urging Caution on Federal Regulation of Non-Competes
Seyfarth’s Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes practice group is pleased to provide the 2022 edition of our 50 State Desktop Reference, which surveys the most-asked questions related to restrictive covenants and trade secrets in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia.
For the company executive, in-house counsel, or HR professional, we hope this guide will provide a starting
Continue Reading Now Available! 2022 Edition of 50 State Non-Compete Desktop Reference
Suffice it to say, it’s never a good idea to deliberately violate a trial court’s order, much less do so repeatedly. That, however, is precisely what Khosrow Daneshgari did in Patriot Towing Services, LLC v. Daneshgari, et al. Notwithstanding Daneshgari’s willful contempt, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently ruled that the trial court nevertheless overstepped its authority by extending the expiration date of the parties’ non-compete agreement. See Daneshgari, et al. v. Patriot Towing Services, LLC, Georgia Court of Appeals, Case No. A21A0887, Oct. 21, 2021.
Continue Reading Georgia Court of Appeals Reiterates that Trial Courts Cannot Rely on Equity to Extend a Non-Compete’s Expiration Date
As in real estate, as in law. A recent ruling in the USDC for the District of Colorado demonstrates that procedural considerations of where to file may often have substantive consequences. Plaintiff LS3, Inc. (“LS3”) sued Cherokee Federal Solutions, LLC (“CFS”) and various former employees of LS3 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The gist of the action was that CFS, a competitor of LS3, solicited away former employees of LS3 to work for CFS in violation of employee non-compete agreements. Claims were asserted against the individual employees for breach of the restrictive covenant agreements and against CFS for tortious interference with those same agreements. Critically, the agreements at issue all contained Maryland choice-of-law provisions but apparently no venue or forum provisions.
Continue Reading Location, Location, Location
Since we last wrote about DC’s sweeping ban on non-competes (the “Act”), there have been many questions and concerns, not surprisingly. And now those have spilled over into deliberations before the DC Council, leading to Councilmember Elissa Silverman’s introduction of the Non-Compete Conflict of Interest Clarification Amendment Act of 2021 on May 21, 2021. Councilmember Silverman and others hope to limit the new non-compete law before it gets funded with an effective date of March 16, 2021. While helpful, the Silverman proposals are extremely limited in scope, and so others have chimed in, leading to a potential delay of the Act’s implementation.
Continue Reading District of Columbia Councilmembers Seek Clarification on Non-Compete Ban
On June 2, 2021, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST, Seyfarth partner Erik Weibust will take part in a panel discussion for Thomson Reuters’ West LegalEdCenter on the ethical issues concerning non-competes, including:
Continue Reading Erik Weibust to Present “The Ethics of Noncompetes” for Thomson Reuters
For the fourth time in six years, Oregon is in the news again for an update to its non-compete laws.
Oregon last updated its non-compete laws just two years ago, with a statute that requires employers to provide terminated employees with a signed, written copy of their non-compete within 30 days of termination. That new obligation was in addition to other Oregon-specific requirements, including:
Continue Reading Oregon Blazes a Trail of Non-Compete Amendments
In an expansive recent ruling, the California Court of Appeal in Brown v. TGS Management Co., LLC reversed a judgment confirming an arbitration award, examining the arbitrator’s findings, and ultimately invalidating a confidentiality provisions in an employment agreement under Business and Professions Code section 16600 on the grounds that they operated as a “de facto noncompete provision” and were “void ab initio and unenforceable.” The court’s decision, upholding the state’s long-standing policy in favor of employee mobility, offered a harsh word of caution for employers that use overly broad confidentiality provisions and other restrictive covenants with their California employees.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Extends the Reach of Section 16600 to Upset Arbitration Award Because of Alleged Overly Broad Confidentiality Provisions
Decision overviewOn August 7, 2020, the Fifth Circuit addressed an issue presently undecided by the Texas Supreme Court; namely, whether reformation of an overbroad non-compete restriction is appropriate, and perhaps even required, at the preliminary injunction stage or must occur as a remedy after trial upon the merits.
In reversing and remanding the contrary lower court decision that declined to reform an overboard non-compete due to an inadequate record, the Fifth Circuit held that reformation of an overly broad covenant not to compete agreement was warranted at the preliminary injunction stage. Calhoun v. Jack Doheny Companies, Inc., No. 20-20068, — F.3d —, 2020 WL 4557641 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2020).
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Holds that Reformation of Texas Non-Competes Is Authorized, and Perhaps Required, at Preliminary Injunction Stage