A recent federal district court ruling serves as an important reminder that a former employee may be held liable for trade secret misappropriation even if the alleged trade secrets are not physically or electronically taken by the departing employee, but instead retained only in memory.Continue Reading Evidence of a Defendant’s Physical or Digital Retention of Trade Secret Information Is Not Required to Prove Trade Secret Misappropriation Under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act
As previously reported (here and here), some Delaware courts have recently declined to “blue pencil,” i.e., modify and narrow overbroad restrictive covenants. Instead, they have stricken in their entirety covenants deemed overbroad and declined to enforce them. On December 10, 2024, in Sunder Energy, LLC v. Tyler Jackson, et al., the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that Delaware courts have the discretion to decline to blue pencil overbroad restrictive covenants, even if the defendant’s conduct would violate a more narrowly circumscribed covenant. Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce Noncompete Against Company Founder Who Joined Competitor
In Samuelian v. Life Generations Healthcare, LLC, — Cal. App. 5th —, 2024 WL 3878448 (Cal. App. Aug. 20, 2024), the California Court of Appeal answered two long outstanding questions of California law concerning the enforceability of noncompetition agreements in the context of the sale of a business:Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Rules That Partial Sale of Business Can Bind Seller-Owner to a Noncompetition Agreement
California has passed two new items of legislation, Senate Bill 699 and Assembly Bill 1076, which will further regulate and restrict the enforcement of employment non-compete agreements in California, and expand the scope of remedies for those affected by them. These new laws will become effective on January 1, 2024, and now is the time for employers to assess and revise their employment-related agreements and restrictive covenants accordingly. As detailed below, they also require employers to notify employees and certain former employees by February 15, 2024 that certain non-compete provisions are void. The two new laws are detailed below.Continue Reading California Strengthens Non-Competition Law
California Labor Code Section 925 prohibits employers from requiring employees who reside and work primarily in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to any provision that would require the employee to litigate outside California any claim arising in California, or that would deprive the employee of the benefit of California law with respect to any claim arising in California. Under Section 925, any such provision is voidable by the employee and if the employee exercises her right to void the provision, then any such claim shall be adjudicated in California under California law.[1]
Continue Reading California Labor Code Section 925 and How Employers Can Avoid It
Business-to-business contracts often concern trade secrets. Contracts such as NDAs, joint development agreements, license agreements, vendor agreements, and other commercial agreements commonly contain restrictive covenants relating to the protection of trade secrets or other protectible interests. But when do these terms constitute an illicit restraint of trade under California law? The California Supreme Court just addressed this very question in Ixchel Pharma v. Biogen , holding that most B2B agreements are governed by the common law rule of reason, instead of the flat prohibition on noncompetes applicable to the employment context.
Continue Reading Ixchel v. Biogen: California B2B Noncompetes Do Not Per Se Violate B&P Section 16600, and Are Instead Subject to Rule of Reason