What You Need to Know about the Recent Cases and Developments in Trade Secrets, Restrictive Covenants, and Computer Fraud

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

REGISTER HERE

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

50 State Non-Compete Guide

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:

  • What the lawyer exemption under Rule 5.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct really means and how the confidentiality rules (Rule 1.6) and successive representation


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.

Prior Oregon Law

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:

  1. Similar to Massachusetts’ 2018 law, the employer must inform the employee that a non-compete is a condition of employment in a written employment offer received at least two weeks before the employee’s first day, or the agreement must entered into upon a “bona fide” promotion;
  2. The employee must be engaged in administrative, executive, or professional work and must (a) perform predominantly intellectual, managerial or creative tasks, (b) exercise discretion and independent judgment, and (c) be salaried;
  3. The employee’s gross annual salary and commissions at the time of termination exceeds the median family income for a four-person family; and
  4. The duration of non-compete duration could not exceed 18 months.


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 overview

On 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