The trend of increased scrutiny over noncompete enforceability, coupled with the uptick in remote work, make it all the more important for companies to revisit the “reasonable efforts” in place to protect their trade secrets.
Noncompete agreements generally are treated the same whether analyzed under state law or antitrust principles. However, limited instances exist in which antitrust laws may be more restrictive than state noncompete laws are. Businesses with high market shares in their geographic and product markets should take special caution to ensure their restrictive covenants do not unlawfully restrain competition.
Businesses routinely use noncompete agreements to protect their most valuable assets, including trade secrets. However, noncompete agreements are increasingly under attack at both the state and federal level. This two-part series will first explain recent developments restricting the use of noncompetes, then Part II will focus on how that increased scrutiny on noncompete agreements may impact trade secret protection.
RE/MAX is suing one of its local franchisees for allegedly instructing his employees to join a national competitor so that he could later follow them and collect a recruitment bonus.
Ex-proprietors of a group of Steak ‘n Shake restaurants must stop operating the former franchises under a new name after agreements between the Indianapolis-based restaurant chain and the ex-franchisees went south.
A ruling for concrete-industry employees in a breach of confidentiality dispute with their former employer has been affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Over the last 18 months we have seen drastic changes in this country’s employment laws as a result of the pandemic, including new and updated laws and regulations related to sick leave, unemployment compensation and employee safety requirements. One change that has been mostly overshadowed by the ever-evolving nature of the pandemic, and its impact on the employment area, is a shift in the use and the enforceability of noncompetition agreements.
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed part of a trial court order restricting a Fort Wayne businessman from competing for web development business with his former employer’s clients he had serviced first as a contractor and later as an executive.
Cases over the past two decades have eroded the enforceability of certain noncompete agreement terms (aka restrictive covenants). Thus, a standard form noncompete agreement drafted in the 1990s may not withstand a court challenge if used today.
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently published a decision that is instructive about noncompete agreements. It is one of the rare noncompete cases that does not contain the phrase: “Indiana courts are reluctant to enforce noncompete agreements because they constitute a restraint on trade.”
A former co-owner of a Fort Wayne mechanical contracting business who violated noncompete agreements by consulting for a Fishers competitor after he was fired lost his appeal Thursday and was ordered to pay more of his former employer’s legal fees.
Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed 84 bills Wednesday, including some that aimed to tackle health care costs, distracted driving and regional development.
The Indiana Supreme Court has vacated a preliminary injunction prohibiting a medical sales representative from recruiting employees away from his former employer, finding a nonsolicitation agreement he had previously signed with the company cannot be reformed.
A recent ruling by a federal judge in Indianapolis could make it easier for financial advisers who switch firms to tell clients about the move without fear of legal consequences.
Dow AgroSciences LLC is crying foul, saying two former employees downloaded thousands of files of valuable and confidential information in the days leading up to their resignations, amounting to theft of company property and a violation of their non-disclosure and non-competition agreements.
The Indiana Court of Appeals has dismissed a man’s appeal of a preliminary injunction against him in a noncompete dispute with the bank that formerly employed him.
Indiana Supreme Court justices will hear oral argument next week in a dispute between a medical components company and one of its former employees after several other former employees left the company to take sales positions together elsewhere.
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case involving a noncompete and solicitation agreement ruled to be overly broad.
The Indiana Court of Appeals partially agreed with a medical components company and one of its employees after it concluded a trial court’s order restricting the vice president of sales from contacting clients from his previous employer was overbroad.
An Indianapolis-based civil engineering firm will have the opportunity to defend its demand for liquidated damages from three employees who allegedly violated non-recruitment agreements after the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for the firm’s competitor. The court also upheld the denial of summary judgment to the competitor on two additional claims stemming from its alleged impermissible recruitment of employees.