1 Using Non-compete Agreements to Protect Trade Secrets Victoria A. Cundiff ul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LL New York, New York
Dec 18, 2015
1
Using Non-compete Agreements to Protect Trade
Secrets
Victoria A. CundiffPaul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
New York, New York
22
Trade Secrets Law is Becoming Increasingly Important
• Economic concerns--trade secrets protection is not free, but may have lower up-front costs
• Uncertainty of protection for some intellectual assets under other regimes
3
Trade secrets owners must disclose secrets to “insiders”
• But most misappropriation occurs at the hands of former insiders–Former employees–Former business partners–Former potential business partners
3
4
Is it reasonable not to consider post-relationship
restraints?
4
5
Post-relationship restraints raise non-i.p. policy
considerations• Restraints on trade disfavored• Employee mobility favored• Impact on innovation?
–Silicon Valley vs. Route 128
5
6
Resolution of policy issues is jurisdiction specific
• Jurisdictions vary widely–California: no post-employment restraints except as permitted by statute
–Florida: restraints permitted to protect trade secrets and business relationships; statute builds in presumptions
6
7
Colorado Model• Statute: Colo. Rev. Stat. 8-2-
113• Non-compete agreements
void except to protect against unfair competition–through misuse of trade secrets, or
–by former executive and managerial employees and their staffs 7
8
• Statute applies to non-solicitation agreements as well as true non-compete agreements, Amtel Corp. v. Vitesse Semiconductor Corp., 30 P. 3d 789 (Colo. App. 2001)
8
9
“For the protection of trade secrets”
• Saying it does not make it so: employer cannot use claim of “trade secret protection” as a subterfuge to prevent otherwise legitimate competition
• “Trade secrets” must satisfy CUTSA test
9
• Does this suggest need for standalone trade secrets agreement? See Haggard v. Synthes Spine, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54818 (D. Colo. June 12, 2009)
11
In tech world the “executive staff”
exception may also apply
–“Plain meaning” applies, so covers mid-level manager with decision-making autonomy, DISH Network Corp. v. Altomari, 2009 Colo. App. LEXIS 1178 (Colo. Ct. App. June 25, 2009)
11
12
• Note that “professional staff” generally includes legal, engineering, scientific and medical personnel, Boulder Medical Ctr. v. Moore, 651 P. 2d 464 (Colo. App. 1982)
12
Two Step Process
• Is there a protectable interest?
• Is the restraint narrowly tailored to protect that interest? Mgm’t Recruiters of Boulder v. Miller, 762 P. 2d 763 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988)
If agreement meets statutory tests
• Presumption of irreparable harm likely applies–But stay tuned for the rest of the story
–See , e.g., Xantrex Technology v. Advanced Energy Industries, Inc., 2008 WL 2185882 (D. Colo. 2008)
15
Practice pointers: Drafting
What does the employee do?Will/did the employee have
access to trade secrets?To meet “trade secrets
exception,” agreement must be geared to protection of trade secrets
15
16
Provide consideration for the agreement, Lucht’s Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner, 2009 WL 1621306 (Colo. Ct. App. June 11, 2009) (unpublished)(continued employment is not sufficient since employers and employees do not have equal bargaining power)
16
Advise the employee of agreement before, during, and after employmentNon-compete agreements
should be just one part of the protection system
18
Colorado is in the vanguard
• Courts and legislatures throughout the country are focusing on policy challenges posed by non-compete agreements
18
19
Examples of new legislation (pending or
enacted)• Oregon• Idaho• Illinois• Georgia• Massachusetts
–Also industry-specific legislation in CT and NY
19
20
Common themes
• Restraints are disfavored• Increasing emphasis on
“leveling bargaining power” by limiting non-competes to high level employees or requiring special compensation
• Scope of restraint to be narrowly tailored 20
• Early notification of non-compete agreements is increasingly required
• Increasing emphasis on protecting information, not simply relationships
22
Remember: Need for post-relationship
restraints is not confined to employment context• Joint ventures and other business relationships
• Supply relationships• Proposed business
relationships that never took effect–Significant damages awards 22
23
Practice pointers: litigating non-competes
Choice of law considerationsFormal requirementsText of agreement; definitionsAbility to reform--plaintiff or
courtScope of restraint
needed/soughtTailoring relief to the specific
breach 23
24
Litigation trends with or without non-compete
agreementsRegardless of jurisdiction,
and regardless of whether there is a contractual post-relationship restraint, the same issues underlying much recent consideration of non-competes will be important in litigating trade secrets cases 24
2525
1. Presumptions
Conventional mantra:
A trade secret, “once lost, is
gone forever”
2626
But when is a trade secret truly at risk of being “lost”?
• Faiveley Transport Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp. , 559 F. 3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009)
2727
Practice pointer
Present evidence that trade secret is at risk of further disclosure or show why damages from use will be peculiarly difficult to remedy or calculate
Presumptions--contractual or legal--may then apply
2828
Practice pointer
Bad acts and wrongful taking may give rise to a presumption of irreparable harm See, e.g., Xantrex
But not always. See, e.g., American Airlines v. Imhof, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46750 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2009)
2929
2. The need to identify trade secrets at an early
stage
• California rule (2019.210(d)) is not only good practice but is increasingly the law across the U.S.
• “Phasing” issues
30
• Illinois proposed statute–Requires specificity in court orders
–Requires early identification/specification of trade secrets
– Imposes deadline for amending specification
–Attorneys fees30
3131
Practice pointer: nationwide
Focus on identification issues early
But Brescia v. Angelin, 172 Cal. App. 4th 133 (2009), rev. denied, points out that standard for extent of detail required to satisfy obligations may vary with facts
3232
3. The Risk of Loss is not “Inevitable” Just Because the Trade Secrets Owner
Fears It• When attempting to protect
trade secrets by limiting post-receipt competition, the trade secrets owner must present evidence to show why disclosure will be inevitable absent the restraint
33
• “Changing teams at halftime” language, without more, will not win the day
33
3434
The Need to Prove Actual Risk is not Just an Issue for those Lacking Non-compete
Agreements
3535
Examples
• Cases involving non-compete agreements:– IBM v. Papermaster, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95516 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2008)
– IBM v. Johnson, 2009 WL 1850316 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2009), aff’d 2009 WL 3416154
3636
Practice Pointer
An “enforceable agreement” is not always enforceable
The factual details always matter and must be thoughtfully developed and presented
3737
The Need for Proof is Heightened Where there is
no Non-compete Agreement
–Doctrine is “an exceedingly narrow path through judicially disfavored territory” and requires a “very strong showing” of actual risk
38
But, upon proper factual showing, broad relief can be
granted even without an agreement
–Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC v. Ogle, No. 09-09210 (Dallas Co. Dist. Ct. July 23, 2009)
38
3939
“Inevitable Disclosure” is not just an Issue when Employees Change Jobs
• Business to business context– Industrial Insulation Group, LLC v. Sproule, 2009 WL 211077 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2009)
4040
Practice Pointer
“Inevitable Disclosure” remedy is “equitable” and need not be “all or nothing”
Courts may grant range of remedies, including non-disclosure/non-use order, non-solicitation order, or non-compete order
4141
Possible Equitable Remedies
Verification techniques• Forensic imaging• Independent monitor• Certification• “Time sheets”
4242
Activity Restraints–Delay start (lead time)–Phased activities –Non-solicit/customer restraint but not full non-compete
–Remedies outside of courtAssignment of patent or other
property (may need contract)????
4343
4. Damages
• Significant awards– largest awards tend to involve former insiders
–contracts help establish “knew or should have known” information was not available for unrestricted use
44
Practice pointer
Need to show causation• Apportionment• Royalties vs. other calculations
44
4545
5. Additional Remedies?
• Computer Fraud & Abuse Act–Not a substitute for trade secret/contractual remedies
–Can be an important supplement
46
Practice pointers
Contracts can be drafted to increase availability of CFAA remediesState vs. federal court Follow specific pleading
requirements and plead recoverable damages
46
4747
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Non-compete agreements contracts can help--but comply with formalities and remember courts will weigh conflicting policiesNon-compete agreements
should be part of an overall policy to protect trade secrets
48
Know the presumptions—but prove the factsTrade secrets need to be
identified clearly—to those granted access, to defendants, and to the CourtInjunctive relief must be
carefully tailored; there is room for nuance, flexibility, and creativity
48
4949
Damages must be calibrated to the lossCourts and legislatures
are becoming increasingly active in this area of law
Keep track of jurisdiction-specific developmentsBe informed by—and
shape-- larger trends
5050
Questions?
Victoria A. CundiffPaul, Hastings, Janofsky &
Walker LLP(212) 318-6030