Kurt Kappes

Subscribe to all posts by Kurt Kappes

California Employee Can Agree to Non-Compete Clause When Represented by Counsel

Many employers and attorneys assume that covenants not to compete found in employment agreements are not enforceable against California residents absent narrow exceptions, and that courts would reject any attempt to apply another state’s choice of law provision to draft around this issue. A recent case from the Delaware Chancery Court, NuVasive, Inc. v. Patrick Miles, … Continue Reading

California Appellate Court’s Expansive Opinion Creates Doubt Over Employee Non-Solicitation Agreements

Although California law generally prohibits non-competition agreements, some courts in a number of unpublished opinions have enforced non-solicitation clauses restricting former employees from pirating their former colleagues. A California appellate court, however, recently invalidated such a provision in a published opinion, calling into question an employer’s ability to rely upon such agreements. In AMN Healthcare Inc. … Continue Reading

GT Publishes a Multi-Country Survey with the ACC on Covenants Not to Compete

Greenberg Traurig recently published a multi-country survey InfoPAKSM on covenants not to compete through the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). Covenants not to compete are important for employers to consider in order to protect proprietary information such as trade secrets, intellectual property, and highly confidential information. However, these post- employment restrictions vary country by country. … Continue Reading

How ‘The Defend Trade Secrets Act’ Affects Your Employment Agreements

On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) into law. The DTSA is immediately effective, and applies to misappropriation that occurs after its enactment. The DTSA is the most significant expansion of intellectual property law since the Lanham Act was passed in the 1940s. The DTSA largely tracks the Uniform … Continue Reading

Greenberg Traurig Publishes a 50-State and DC Survey with the ACC on Covenants Not to Compete

Greenberg Traurig recently published an InfoPAKSM on covenants not to compete through the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). Covenants not to compete are important for employers to consider in order to protect proprietary information such as trade secrets, intellectual property, and highly confidential information. However, these post-employment restrictions vary state by state.  These differences should be considered … Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit Broadens California Rule Against Non-Competes

Drafting an effective employment agreement or release has become a challenging endeavor for a new reason. In Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit added another source of concern to those employers who deploy “no re-hire” provisions in releases. Following Golden, a fact-intensive inquiry may be … Continue Reading

GT Alert — Massachusetts Courts Tie the Very Existence of ‘Trade Secrets’ to Your Business Practice

The GT Alert — Massachusetts Courts Tie the Very Existence of ‘Trade Secrets’ to Your Business Practices was prepared by David G. Thomas, James P. Ponsetto and Kurt A. Kappes. Companies must take “reasonable measures” to protect trade secret information in the event the company needs to protect it through the Massachusetts Court System. Failing … Continue Reading

GT Alert — Join the Party. Another California-based Former Employee Challenges Out-of-State Company’s Non-Compete Provisions as Unfair Business Practice

If your client has California operations and isn’t aware, it could end up like the employer did in Shomit James v. Globus Medical, Inc. James demonstrates that the competition in California for talent remains high, that competitors are increasingly aggressive about hiring employees your client may think are “locked up,” and will offensively challenge standard … Continue Reading

Recent California Case Highlights Standards for Trade Secret Misappropriation Cases

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently denied a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment that a former employee had misappropriated trade secrets when he left to work for a competitor, and granted the defendant's crossmotion for summary judgment. The case provides a useful overview of the evidence needed to support a violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA).… Continue Reading
LexBlog