Category: Employee Mobility and Restrictive Covenants

You’re probably reading the title of this article and saying, “He’s gone bonkers! What does ‘radius’ and Edgar Allan Poe’s poem ‘The Raven’ have to do with restrictive covenants?”

This article is for all you inner mathematicians and geometry aficionados. More to the point, it is for those who draft, interpret and litigate non-compete agreements that contain geographic restrictions. When I heard that Google Earth had launched a new tool to measure distance and area, it sparked memories yonder of an esoteric, but very important, issue that is litigated occasionally in non-compete cases, and now the subject of the twentieth article of this Series.

Continue reading “Part 20 of “The Restricting Covenant” Series: Radius, The Raven, and Restrictive Covenants”

If you are one of the billions of smartphone users worldwide, I bet you recently downloaded a mobile app and clicked “I agree” to the app’s terms of use or service. Did you actually read all (any) of the terms before you agreed? Courts typically call these contracts (yes, they can be enforceable contracts) “clickwrap agreements.” A clickwrap agreement is formed when a user affirmatively clicks a button or checks a box that explicitly indicates that the user has accepted or agreed to the terms of an agreement upon viewing its terms.

It is becoming commonplace for employers to use web-based clickwrap agreements with their employees either as part of onboarding (e.g., employment agreements) or during the course of employment (e.g., stock award agreements). These clickwrap agreements can include important post-employment restrictive covenants. Are these covenants enforceable?

Continue reading “Part 19 of “The Restricting Covenant” Series: Clickwrap Covenants Not to Compete”

Most litigators will attest that court reporters and transcribers are essential to the litigation process because they provide a verbatim record of depositions and other court proceedings. Court reporters are extremely patient, courteous, and obviously great listeners. Often times, we lawyers tend to have our “favorites” – you know, the court reporters who you work with repeatedly because they pick up your preferences and other linguistic quirks. I typically think of court reporters as “independent contractors” who would not be bound by traditional non-competition agreements. But when I learned about cases in some jurisdictions enforcing restrictive covenants involving court reporters, I had to write about a few of them in this eighteenth article of the Series.

Continue reading “Part 18 of “The Restricting Covenant” Series: Court Reporters and Covenants Not to Compete”

Make no bones about it, non-compete disputes can be litigious, contentious, and downright nasty. Someone breached another’s trust or loyalty; or stole something valuable from someone else; or didn’t uphold his or her end of the bargain. Battle lines are drawn. Nevertheless, there are codes of civility, professionalism, and rules of law that must be followed. So, you would think that when a court enters an order granting injunctive relief consistent with the parties’ non-compete agreement, the order would be followed, right? Read on. In this sixteenth article of the Series, I discuss a few extreme examples of litigants in non-compete disputes who failed to comply with court orders, resulting in significant monetary damages and other sanctions.

Continue reading “Part 16 of “The Restricting Covenant” Series: Civil Contempt and Covenants Not to Compete”

Highly valuable trade secrets, corporate espionage, elaborate schemes to evade detection, and national defense implications.  Have I piqued your curiosity?  I hope so.  In this fifteenth article of The Restricting Covenant series, I discuss two cases that involve individuals and business enterprises charged by the federal government with stealing valuable trade secrets from U.S.-based companies.  The stakes are extremely high on all sides.

Continue reading “Part 15 of “The Restricting Covenant” Series: Non-Competes, Trade Secrets and Corporate Espionage”