![\"Lawrence](\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/tradesecretslaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/18\/2024\/08\/pockerslawrence-100x100.jpg\")
Lawrence H. Pockers<\/a>
Read Lawrence's bio.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>With 2018 well underway, it\u2019s time to look ahead to what are likely to be some of the key issues\/stories relating to non-competition agreements and trade secrets this year:<\/p>\n Last year saw the enactment of a number of state laws relating to non-competition agreements. See, e.g.<\/em>, Cal. Lab. Code \u00a7 925<\/strong> (setting conditions on requiring employees who primarily reside and work in California to sign agreements containing a mandatory non-California choice of law clause or a mandatory forum selection clause outside of California); 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. 90\/1 through 90\/10<\/strong> (prohibiting covenants not to compete between Illinois employers and their low-wage employees, i.e.<\/em>, those who earn no more than \u201cthe greater of (1) the hourly rate equal to the minimum wage required by the applicable federal, State, or local minimum wage law or (2) $13.00 per hour.\u201d); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 AB 276, \u00a7 1<\/strong> (setting forth new standard for Nevada courts to analyze non-competition agreements and reversing Nevada Supreme Court\u2019s 2016 Golden Road<\/em> decision to restore Nevada to a \u201cblue pencil\u201d state).<\/p>\n This year is likely to see a continued push in state legislatures for the enactment of laws relating to non-competition agreements. Legislators in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Vermont have all recently introduced bills that would limit enforcement of non-competition agreements. Pennsylvania\u2019s bill (House Bill No. 1938), if enacted, would ban covenants not to compete entered into after the effective date of the legislation, except those involving the sale of a business or the dissolution or disassociation of a partnership or a limited liability company. If enacted, the bill would also entitle an employee who prevails in a suit against an employer related to the enforcement of a covenant not to compete to recover attorneys\u2019 fees and punitive damages, and would require any dispute arising out of or related to a covenant not to compete involving a Pennsylvania resident to be exclusively decided by a Pennsylvania state court applying Pennsylvania law.<\/p>\n The Defend Trade Secrets Act (\u201cDTSA\u201d) was signed into law on May 11, 2016. Thus far, the case law interpreting the DTSA has focused primarily on a few discrete issues:<\/p>\n As we near the two-year mark since the passage of the DTSA, the number of cases interpreting the Act are likely to increase.<\/p>\n Last year saw a number of cases that will likely impact the landscape in non-compete cases in the jurisdictions where those cases were decided. See<\/em>, e.g.<\/em>, Reilly v. City of Harrisburg<\/em>, 858 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2017), as amended<\/em> (June 26, 2017) (clarifying the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction, holding that the movant must initially satisfy the two \u201cmost critical\u201d factors of the traditional four factor test for injunctive relief \u2013 likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm \u2013 and that to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the movant need only show that its odds of success are significantly better than negligible); Ag Spectrum Co. v. Elder<\/em>, 865 F.3d 1088, 1093 (8th Cir. 2017) (applying Iowa law, declining to hold an independent contractor\u2019s non-compete provision as per se<\/em> unenforceable); White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Florida, LLC<\/em>, 226 So.3d 774, 786 (Fla. 2017) (holding that \u201clegitimate business interests\u201d as defined by Florida non-compete statute may include referral sources).<\/p>\n What key decisions will 2018 bring? Stay tuned.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" With 2018 well underway, it\u2019s time to look ahead to what are likely to be some of the key issues\/stories relating to non-competition agreements and trade secrets this year: Continued Push in State Legislatures for Non-Compete Reform Last year saw the enactment of a number of state laws relating to non-competition agreements. See, e.g., Cal. … <\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n