Trade Secret Protection Plans Provide Certainty to Employers
The protection of trade secrets has long been understood to be a legitimate business interest, and, traditionally, companies have used non-competition clauses to protect their trade secrets. Now, with non-competition agreements in doubt and facing greater scrutiny, companies will need to rely on other protection mechanisms.
June 11, 2024 at 04:34 PM
6 minute read
What You Need to Know
- The Federal Trade Commission's final rule prohibits most employers from binding the majority of American workers to post-employment non-competition agreements.
- While the Final Rule's enforcement is expected to be delayed and will likely never take effect, the Final Rule itself is a good reminder that non-compete agreements in the employee-employer context are under more scrutiny than ever.
- Companies should implement a trade secret protection plan to ensure that their trade secrets are secure and that they can seek protection under the DTSA or UTSA.
Baker Donelson recently published an article called "The End of Non-Competition Agreements? Not so Fast!" The article summarizes the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) final rule prohibiting most employers from binding the majority of American workers to post-employment non-competition agreements (Final Rule).
While the Final Rule's enforcement is expected to be delayed and will likely never take effect, the Final Rule itself is a good reminder that non-compete agreements in the employee-employer context are under more scrutiny than ever and in some states, like California, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, are already banned as a matter of law.
Other states, such as Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Illinois, only allow employers to bind highly compensated employees to traditional non-competition agreements. Even in states that are considered to be employer-friendly in the context of non-competition agreements, judges are carefully reviewing non-competition agreements to ensure that they are reasonable in their duration, scope, and geography and are no broader than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllKelly Hart Secures $27M Trade Secrets Misappropriation Final Judgment in Fort Worth Trial
3 minute readCalifornia Federal Court Grants CoStar Group's Motion to Narrow Claims in Move Inc. Trade Secrets Case
Former Jury Researcher Accused of Stealing Legal Service Provider's Trade Secrets, Clients
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250