On May 14, 2019, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed into law HB 2992, which, as of January 1, 2020, requires an employer to provide a terminated employee with a signed, written copy of his or her non-competition agreement within 30 days of his or her termination date. Failure to do so will render the agreement voidable and unenforceable in the state of Oregon.
Backdrop for HB 2992
Under current Oregon law (ORS 653.295), a non-competition agreement is not enforceable unless the following four requirements are met: (1) the employer informs the employee of the non-competition agreement in a written employment offer received at least two weeks before the employee’s first day, or the agreement is entered into upon promotion; (2) the employee is engaged in administrative, executive, or professional level work; (3) the employer has a protectable interest in requiring the non-competition agreement; and (4) the employee’s gross annual salary and commissions at the time of termination exceeds the median family income for a four-person family. Furthermore, the term of a non-competition agreement may not exceed 18 months from the date of the employee’s termination. Any time remaining on a non-competition agreement beyond 18 months is voidable and precluded from enforcement by any Oregon court.
Continue Reading Oregon Adds Employee-Friendly Requirement to Existing Non-Compete Law… But Also Produces Company-Friendly Trade Secrets Law in Recent Court of Appeals Case
In Seyfarth’s 
Caramel Crisp LLC, the owner of Garrett Popcorn Shops (“Garrett”), the renowned Chicago-based purveyor of deliciously flavored popcorn, recently filed suit in federal court in Chicago against its former director of research and development, Aisha Putnam, alleging that she misappropriated the company’s trade secrets, including its recipes for Garret’s famous popcorn, after she was fired. Putnam was hired in 2014 and was eventually promoted to the role of Director of Research and Development, where she had access to some of Garrett’s most confidential information and trade secrets. In that role, she was required to sign a confidentiality and non-compete agreement, which, among other things, required her to return all of Garrett’s confidential information upon the termination of her employment.
As readers of this blog know, most trade secret misappropriation claims are brought in civil complaints—but a recent case out of Pennsylvania reveals how quickly the tables can turn on a civil plaintiff asserting claims against her former employer, resulting not only in civil counterclaims for trade secret misappropriation, but also in criminal prosecution. This case reveals how defense counsel can—and should—take an aggressive approach to protection of clients’ confidential and trade secret information, not only to preserve clients’ claim that such information is confidential, but to obtain critical leverage in high-stakes litigation. 
The Alleghany Court of Common Pleas in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, recently denied a law firm’s request to enjoin its former partner from retaining a database that contained various information used to file legal actions under the American with Disabilities Act. According to the law firm, the database was a “trade secret” of the firm, and consequently, the former partner violated the
A California federal district court recently granted a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against a former employee for misappropriating proprietary and confidential information in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), and company confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. Bemis Co., Inc. v. Summers, No. 219CV00344TLNKJN, 2019 WL 1004853, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2019).
Last week, the Ninth Circuit finally 
In Seyfarth’s 
After being slapped with a post-trial judgment last April totaling $2.2 million for misappropriation of confidential and proprietary information, two Wyoming bank executives were named in an unprecedented “