Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility

Last week, employers who use noncompetes got more good news with respect to the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed noncompete ban.

As readers of this blog are probably aware, back in August, the FTC’s noncompete ban was blocked when the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a memorandum opinion and order in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Comm’n, Case No. 3:24-cv-00986-E, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and setting aside nationwide the FTC’s noncompete ban that was scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2024.

Employers who use noncompetes may have breathed a sigh of relief with the Texas Court’s ruling, but a small doubt of uncertainty lingered.  Could another court reach the opposite decision and rule that the FTC noncompete ban may go into effect?

Two other federal lawsuits (one in Pennsylvania and one in Florida) challenging the FTC noncompete ban remained pending, and each had ruled upon a motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the FTC noncompete ban.  Like the Court in Texas, in Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, Case No. 5:24-cv-316 (M.D. Fla.), the Florida Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (although limited in scope only to the plaintiff), and seemed likely to reach a final decision on the merits in line with the Texas Court. 

Ten days ahead of her self-imposed deadline, Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas issued a memorandum opinion and order granting the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment, setting aside the Federal Trade Commission’s forthcoming Noncompete Ban nationwide, which was set to go into effect on September 4, 2024. In other words, as we predicted, the FTC’s Noncompete Ban is dead nationwide unless and until a Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the United States revives it.  

Judge Brown granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion as to every claim under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA), ruling that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority when it issued the Noncompete Ban and that the Noncompete Ban is arbitrary and capricious.

Judge Brown set the tone for her decision by quoting the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S.Ct. 2244, 2261 (2024), where the Court overruled the principle of Chevron deference established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc. (1984), stating: “Congress in 1946 enacted the APA as a check upon administrators whose zeal might otherwise have carried them to excesses not contemplated in legislation creating their offices.”

After what must have been a grueling two-hour and 52-minute oral argument on the merits of a challenge to the FTC’s Final Rule banning noncompetes, Judge Timothy Corrigan of the United States Court for the Middle District of Florida issued a ruling from the bench in Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, Case No. 5:24-cv-316 granting the plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Effective Date and Preliminary Injunction.  Importantly, as with the decision in the Northern District of Texas, the court limited the scope of the preliminary injunction to the named plaintiff only.

Judge Corrigan’s swift ruling granting the motion to stay at the completion of the hearing is a welcome decision given the looming September 4, 2024 effective date of the FTC’s noncompete ban. While the court rejected two of plaintiff’s arguments as to success on the merits, the court held that the FTC exceeded its authority under the major questions doctrine.

In particular, the court quoted Supreme Court precedent that “common sense, informed by constitutional structure, tells us that Congress normally intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies[.]”  Judge Corrigan considered the “huge economic impact” the Final Rule would have in transferring value from employers to employees, along with the Final Rule’s political significance preempting state competition laws.  In finding that the plaintiff established a likelihood of success on the major questions doctrine, the Florida court has established a split from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which ruled in July that the FTC’s issuance of the Final Rule did not implicate the major questions doctrine.   

We previously reported that Ryan LLC (“Plaintiff”) and the United States Chamber of Commerce (“Plaintiff-Intervenor”), in anticipation of the Northern District of Texas’s merits disposition, would likely seek nationwide application of the preliminary injunction staying the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Noncompete Rule, or alternatively, that the preliminary injunction be expanded to apply to all of Plaintiff-Intervenor’s members under the associational standing doctrine.

On July 19, 2024, Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor filed motions seeking exactly that type of relief. 

We previously reported that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Comm’n, Case No. 3:24-cv-00986-E, granted a preliminary injunction staying the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) final rule banning almost all post-employment noncompetes (the “Noncompete Rule”), but limited the scope of its ruling to only those parties in that case. Following that ruling, on July 10, 2024, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff-intervenors (“Plaintiffs”) filed an Expedited Motion for Limited Reconsideration of the Scope of Preliminary Relief on the issue of associational standing.

On July 11, the court promptly denied Plaintiffs’ motion. In a one-paragraph order, the court held that Plaintiffs had “not shown themselves entitled to the respective relief requested.” Separately, the court entered an “amended briefing schedule for the merits disposition” (the “Briefing Schedule”) that will likely address many of the issues argued in Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The Briefing Schedule requires that the matter be fully briefed by August 16, 2024, and the court is scheduled to issue a disposition on the merits by August 30, 2024.     

As we all await rulings on the lawsuits challenging the FTC’s Noncompete Rule (one of which may be decided later today), we provide an update on the Knicks/Raptors trade secret case that we previously discussed on EBG’s Spilling Secrets Podcast Series and blogged about here.  Although the Knicks had a successful year on the court, they suffered an in court loss last week to the Toronto Raptors.    

In the March 2024 edition, Bracket-Busting Trade Secret and Non-Compete Disputes in Sports, we discussed the Knicks’ federal court action against the Toronto Raptors for theft of trade secrets.  We noted that the Knicks sought neither a Temporary Restraining Order nor a Preliminary Injunction and that the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to stay the case pending arbitration before the Commissioner of the NBA.      

In a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Knicks alleged that their former employee and now current Raptors employee, Ikechukwu Azotam, misappropriated the Knicks’ confidential and proprietary information at the behest of the Raptors, in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (the “CFAA”), as well as various common law claims.  The defendants moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to compel arbitration pursuant to the NBA’s Constitution and By-Laws, which provide that the NBA Commissioner shall have complete and final jurisdiction over any dispute involving two or more members of the NBA. 

On June 26, 2024, Rhode Island Governor Dan McKee vetoed a bill that would have banned nearly all noncompetes and customer non-solicits in the State of Rhode Island.

The Rhode Island legislature passed 2024-H8059 Substitute A, “An Act Relating to Labor and Labor Relations Rhode Island Noncompetition Agreement Act” (the “Bill”), that if enacted, would have banned all new and existing noncompetes except for those “made in connection with the sale of a business.” If the Bill had been passed, it also would have banned all customer non-solicits, although employee non-solicits would have remained enforceable.

This is the final installment of our three-part series discussing employers’ most frequently asked questions in response to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Final Noncompete Rule (the “Noncompete Rule”).

As reported in Part 2, there are continued attempts at both the federal and state level to ban or restrict the use of noncompetes.  As a result of this ongoing attack on noncompetes, employers have asked a third – and most important – question: “In light of the Noncompete Rule and push by many states to restrict the use of noncompetes, what should we be doing now to best protect our business interests?”

The answer to this often-asked question is to ensure that the company’s trade secret and confidential information is protected to the fullest extent possible through the use of a Trade Secret Assessment, or as we have referred to it: a “Trade Secret Tune-Up."

This is the second installment of our three-part blog series that is intended to respond to employers’ three most frequently asked questions in response to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Final Noncompete Rule (the “Noncompete Rule”). Part 1 addressed whether employers can seek to enforce their noncompetes pending the anticipated effective date of the Noncompete Rule. 

A second frequently asked question is: “Can we continue to enter into noncompetes with newly hired, or existing, employees?”  The short answer is “yes”, but employers should be aware of some pitfalls.

This three-part blog series is intended to identify and respond to three of the most frequently posed questions by employers in response to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Final Noncompete Rule (the “Noncompete Rule”).

We previously reported on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Noncompete Rule and the currently pending litigation challenging the Noncompete Rule.  In one of those cases, which was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and consolidated with the lawsuit filed by the United States Chamber of Commerce, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Stay and Preliminary Injunction. The court has indicated that it intends to rule on that motion by July 3, 2024.

We recently reported on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) 3-2 vote to issue its final noncompete rule that, unless it is enjoined, would ban all new noncompetes and a majority of existing noncompetes (the Noncompete Rule).  As expected, within hours of the FTC’s vote on the final noncompete rule, Ryan, LLC, a leading global tax services and software provider, filed a lawsuit challenging the Noncompete Rule, and shortly thereafter the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (the U.S. Chamber) followed suit, filing its own lawsuit seeking to vacate and set aside the ...

As expected, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted 3-2 yesterday to issue its final noncompete rule, with only a few changes from the proposed rule that are discussed below. Unless it is enjoined, which we expect, the rule will become effective 120 days after publication of the final version in the Federal Register.

If the final rule survives the legal challenges, which are likely to make it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, all new non-competes would be banned. Except for existing non-competes for senior executives (as defined below), all existing noncompetes with ...

On March 29, 2024, Maine Governor Janet T. Mills vetoed a bill that would have banned all employee noncompete agreements in the State of Maine.  Both chambers of the Maine legislature passed L.D. 1496, An Act to Prohibit Noncompete Clauses, that if enacted, would have banned employers from entering into noncompete clauses with employees and would have permitted noncompete agreements in Maine in only three limited circumstances: (i) the sale of a business; (ii) a shareholder in a limited liability company who sells or disposes all of the shareholders shares; or (iii) member of a ...

Earlier this year, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it was launching the Disruptive Technology Strike Force (“Strike Force”) in an effort “to target illicit actors, strengthen supply chains and protect critical technological assets from being acquired or used by nation-state adversaries.”  The DOJ’s initial announcement can be found here.  The Strike Force is co-led by the DOJ and Commerce Department with the goal of countering efforts by hostile nation-states seeking to illegally acquire sensitive United States technology.  On May 16, 2023, the DOJ announced criminal charges in five cases from five different U.S. Attorney’s Offices in connection with the Strike Force’s efforts.  Two of the cases involve allegations of trade secret theft from U.S. technology companies with the intent to market the technology in foreign countries. 

On May 10, 2018, the New Jersey Assembly Labor Committee advanced Assembly Bill A1769, a bill that seeks to provide stricter requirements for the enforcement of restrictive covenants.

If enacted, the legislation would permit employers to enter into non-competes with employees as a condition of employment or within a severance agreement, but such non-competes would only be enforceable if they meet all of the requirements set forth in the legislation. Thus, if enacted, employers will have to comply with the following requirements in order for a New Jersey non-competition agreement ...

Consider the following scenario: your organization holds an annual meeting with all Research & Development employees for the purpose of having an open discussion between thought leaders and R&D regarding product-development capabilities. This year’s meeting is scheduled outside the United States and next year’s will be within the U.S. with all non-U.S. R&D employees traveling into the U.S. to attend. For each meeting, your employees may be subject to a search of their electronic devices, including any laptop that may contain your company’s trade secrets. Pursuant to a new ...

Consider the following scenario that was the premise of the book Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (1964), and later adapted into the classic film Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971): your company (Willy Wonka Chocolates) is in the candy business and develops an idea for an everlasting gobstopper (a sucking candy that never gets smaller).  Anticipating substantial profits from the product, the company designates the everlasting gobstopper formula as a trade secret.  As in the book and film, a rival chocolate company (Slugworth Chocolates) seeks to steal the trade secret ...