In managing workforces, particularly when addressing employee turnover, employers often find themselves facing issues regarding how best to safeguard their confidential business information and how to protect their relationships with clients and employees. In recent years, the legal landscape underlying these issues has been evolving, as lawmakers and judges grapple with the tension in these matters between protection and free competition.

In this Take 5, we examine recent developments, both in the courts and legislative bodies, concerning trade secrets and employee mobility:

  1. Antitrust Action Against No-Poaching Agreements: The Trump Administration Continues Obama Policy
  2. Drafting “Garden Leave” Clauses in Employment Agreements
  3. Will Insurance Cover a Company Sued in a Trade Secrets Lawsuit?
  4. Defend Trade Secrets Act Developments in 2017
  5. New and Proposed State Statutes and Federal Legislation Limiting Non-Compete Agreements

Read the full Take 5 online or download the PDF.

In 2017, there were several cases worth noting under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”). These cases addressed (i) time periods covered by the DTSA, (ii) pleading requirements under the DTSA, and (iii) standards for obtaining ex parte seizure orders under the DTSA. We will discuss these three issues in turn.


The DTSA became effective May 11, 2016, which raised the questions of if, when, and how it might apply to pre-May 11, 2016, conduct. Simply stated, defendants may have a “timing defense” when the alleged misappropriation occurred before the DTSA’s enactment (May 11, 2016). See Cave Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62109 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2017). As the Cave Consulting court noted,

[W]ithout facts about when post-enactment use occurred and whether the information disclosed was new or somehow different from the prior misappropriation, plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the DTSA.[1]

The court, however, gave the plaintiff the opportunity to amend, while pointing out that “[t]he Act’s text contemplates three theories of liability: (1) acquisition, (2) disclosure, or (3) use . . .” and that “[n]othing suggests that the DTSA forecloses a use-based theory simply because the trade secret being used was misappropriated before DTSA’s enactment.”[2] Thus, there is no “timing” defense when the plaintiff can show that misappropriation has continued to (or likely will) occur on a date after the statute’s May 11, 2016, effective date. Brand Energy & Infrastructure Sev. v. Irex Contracting Grp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43497 (E.D. Pa. March 23, 2017) (a plaintiff is allowed to pursue a DTSA claim because the amended complaint alleged multiple uses of trade secrets that occurred after the DTSA was enacted). Courts’ focusing on the timing of alleged misappropriations continues into 2018. Indeed, in Ultradent Prods. v. Spectrum Sols., LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3858 (D.Utah Jan. 8, 2018), the court dismissed the complaint precisely because “[n]one of the allegations against Spectrum indicate[d] when the alleged misappropriation occurred,” leaving one to speculate as to whether the misappropriations were alleged to have occurred after the effective date of the statute.


Under the now well-known Twombly/Iqbal standard, applicable on motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), DTSA plaintiffs must adequately allege, among other requirements, that they took reasonable steps to maintain the secrecy of protected information. In Aggreko, LLC v. Barreto, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35573 (D. N. Dak. Mar. 13, 2017), the plaintiff alleged that it required employees to sign a confidentiality agreement and that information was not disseminated outside the workplace. That was deemed sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). But in Raben Tire Co. v. Dennis McFarland, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26051 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 24, 2017), the plaintiff failed to allege that employees were required to sign confidentiality agreements or to allege any other indicia of reasonable steps to maintain secrecy. This led to a dismissal with prejudice.

Likewise, to avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must adequately allege improper acquisition and/or improper disclosure or use and must do so through more than conclusory allegations or labels. See Prominence Advisors, Inc. v. Dalton, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207617 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2017) (dismissing the DTSA count).

Ex Parte Seizures

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, courts have limited the applicability of the DTSA seizure mechanism. That puts a damper on some of the initial enthusiasm that trade secret holders held for the possibility of expanded enforcement rights under the DTSA. For example, courts in California and Indiana each held that statutory seizure orders are only available in extreme circumstances and only when traditional injunctions or temporary restraining orders (“TROs”) sought under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would be inadequate. See OOO Brunswick Rail Mgmt. V. Sultanov, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2343 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2017) (“A court may issue a seizure order only if, among other requirements, an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 or another form of equitable relief would be inadequate.”), and Magnesita Refractories Co. v. Mishra, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10204 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 25, 2017) (traditional Rule 65 TROs are still the preferred means of ordering a seizure of property in DTSA cases; “[o]bviously, in this case, Rule 65 did the trick.”). Rather than making seizures easier and more likely, these cases suggest that the standards for a DTSA seizure order are more strenuous than those under Rule 65.

A version of this article originally appeared in the Take 5 newsletter Keeping Pace in the Fast-Moving World of Trade Secrets and Employee Mobility.”

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 directive issued in January 2018 by the U.S. Custom and Border Protection (“CBP”), the electronic devices of all individuals, including U.S. citizens and U.S. residents, may be subject to search upon entry into (or leaving) the U.S. by the CBP. CBP Directive No. 3340-049A (Jan. 4, 2018).

The directive allows for the warrantless border search of electronic devices without a showing of reasonable suspicion. It differentiates between a basic search and an advanced search. A basic search allows officers, with or without suspicion, to examine an electronic device, including an examination of the information that is resident and accessible on the device. Information that is solely stored remotely may not be accessed. An advanced search is one in which the officer connects external equipment, through a wired or wireless connection, to an electronic device in order to “review, copy, and/or analyze” the contents of the electronic device. Advanced searches are permitted where there is a “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity or for national security concerns. While the directive states that “[m]any factors” may create a reasonable suspicion or a national security concern warranting an advanced search, it articulates examples particularly aimed at national security concerns but does not provide much color as to what may constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

By issuing the directive, the CBP appears to align its position with that of the majority of federal courts that held reasonable suspicion is not required for border searches of electronic devices. See, e.g., United States v. Ickes, 393 F.3d 501, 506-07 (4th Cir. 2005) (rejecting reasonable suspicion requirement for laptop computer searches at the border); United States v. Linarez-Delgado, 259 Fed. Appx. 506, 508 (3d Cir. 2007) (rejecting reasonable suspicion requirement for border search of electronic data). Thus, the CBP may have also sought to reject the statements by at least one other court suggesting a requirement for a showing of reasonable suspicion before search of an electronic device. See, e.g., United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) (implying that officers need reasonable suspicion to conduct a border search of complex personal computing devices).

Can’t your employees just encrypt everything before international travel? Under the directive, travelers are required to present the electronic device (and the information contained within the device) in a condition that allows for the inspection of the device and its contents. Therefore, under the directive, officers may request an individual’s assistance in accessing the device if it is encrypted or password protected, and officers are authorized to detain a device pending a determination as to its admissibility in to the U.S.; they may also exclude a device if access to it is prevented by encryption or password protection.

The directive provides officers with instructions regarding the handling of certain sensitive materials, including business information, medical records, and information protected under the attorney-client privilege. Upon encountering business or commercial information resulting from a search, such as confidential business information, officers are required to “protect that information from unauthorized disclosure[.]” Such confidential business information may only be shared with agencies or entities that have mechanisms in place to protect the information.

Companies should alert employees of the requirements under the new directive. Certain preventative steps should be considered to minimize the potential for disclosure of confidential information at the border, including: (1) minimizing the number of electronic devices with trade secret or confidential information; (2) minimizing the amount of confidential information on a device; (3) to the extent possible, using electronic devices that do not contain confidential information when international travel is required; and (4) considering whether confidential information on the device should be encrypted but with the knowledge that CBP may request that the device be unlocked. Companies should also be cognizant of other issues relating to encrypted devices, including U.S. export control requirements for traveling to certain countries and licenses that may be required for individuals traveling into certain countries with an encrypted device.

In the event of an inspection request by an officer, your employees should be prepared to alert the officer that the device contains confidential business information in order to protect against its disclosure. Employees should also carry company business cards to show officers requesting an inspection that they are an employee of your company.

Of the various types of post-employment restrictions imposed on employees, a restriction on the recruitment of former co-workers (sometimes referred to as a “no-poach” or “anti-raiding” clause) is the type most likely to be enforced by a court. As a result, this is one type of post-employment restriction that is frequently drafted without the careful thought generally put in to traditional non-competes and client non-solicitation clauses.  But in what could be a foreshadowing of closer judicial scrutiny of co-worker non-solicitation clauses nationwide, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently held that the Wisconsin non-compete statute applies to such clauses, and that the particular clause in question was unenforceable because it was not “reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer.”

Specifically, in Manitowoc Company v. Lanning, 2018 WI 6 (Jan. 19, 2018), the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin’s non-compete statute, Wis. Stat. § 103.465, broadly applies to restrictions on competition, including post-employment restrictions on the ability to solicit former co-workers.  In Lanning, the defendant, an engineer and former employee of the plaintiff, resigned and immediately began working for the plaintiff’s direct competitor. Defendant did not have a non-compete agreement but he did sign an employment agreement that included a non-solicitation clause that prohibited him from soliciting or inducing any employees from the plaintiff’s company to join a competitor within the two-year period following his resignation. After joining the competitor, defendant allegedly began to recruit employees to join the competitor company. Plaintiff argued that the defendant’s actions violated the non-solicit provision and sued him. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the non-solicitation provision was an unreasonable restraint on trade which failed to meet the statutory requirement that the restriction “be reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer.”

Wis. Stat. § 103.465 sets forth five requirements that must be met for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable. The restraint must: “(1) be necessary for the protection of the employer, that is, the employer must have a protectable interest justifying the restriction imposed on the activity of the employee; (2) provide a reasonable time limit; (3) provide a reasonable territorial limit; (4) not be harsh or oppressive as to the employee; and (5) not be contrary to public policy.”

Here, the court looked to several factors when determining that the non-solicit provision was an unreasonable restriction on trade, including the fact that the provision contained no limitation based on the employee’s position, no limitation based on the employee’s “familiarity with or influence over a particular employee,” and no geographical limitation. The company argued that the provision was written to protect the company’s “investment of time and capital involved in recruiting, training and developing its employee base from ‘poaching’ by a ‘former employee who has full awareness of the talent and skill set of said employee base.’” The Court rejected this claim, instead determining that the provision was overbroad and restricted competitors’ access to the labor pool.

This case sends a message to employers that all types of post-employment restrictions on employees, even those which are not traditional non-compete agreements, should be drafted narrowly to protect legitimate business interests of the company, and should be no broader than necessary.

Featured on Employment Law This Week:  No relief is expected from the Trump administration on anti-poaching agreements.

2016 guidance from the DOJ and FTC put employers on notice that agreements between companies not to poach employees, or to limit the compensation paid to some employees, could violate antitrust laws. There had been some speculation that President Trump’s DOJ would back away from this policy, but recent comments by the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division indicated that new administration will support the policy, and promised several announcements in the coming months.

Watch the segment below and read our recent post.

Several states in recent years have enacted laws that have been designed, in varying degrees, to limit non-competes, including California, Illinois, and Nevada. Which states and cities are most likely to do the same in 2018?

The New Hampshire and New York City legislatures have introduced bills that seek to prohibit the use of non-compete agreements with regard to low-wage employees. Under New Hampshire’s Bill (SB 423), a “low-wage employee” is defined as one who earns $15.00 per hour or less.  The New Hampshire Bill was introduced on January 24, 2018 and is scheduled for a hearing in February.  Under New York City’s bill (Introduction 1663), a “low-wage employee” means all employees except for manual workers, railroad workers, commission salesmen, and workers employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity whose earnings are in excess of $900 dollars a week. In addition, the New York City Bill would prohibit employers from “requir[ing] a potential employee who is not a low-wage worker to enter into a covenant not to compete, unless, at the beginning of the process for hiring [the employee], [the] employer disclos[es] in writing that [the employee] may be subject to such a covenant.”  The New York City Bill was introduced by the City Council on July 20, 2017 and filed on December 31, 2017.

Other more sweeping proposals to restrict the use of all non-compete agreements have been introduced in Pennsylvania and Vermont.  The scope of Vermont’s Bill (HB 556) appears to be broader than Pennsylvania’s and prohibits, with exceptions, any agreement “not to compete or any other agreement that restrains an individual from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business.” HB 556 was introduced on January 3, 2018 and is currently in Committee.  Pennsylvania’s Bill (HB1938) prohibits (also subject to some exceptions), an agreement between an employer and employee that “is designed to impede the ability of the employee to seek employment with another employer.” The Bill includes provisions that would award attorneys’ fees and damages (including punitive damages) to those employees who prevail in litigation against an employer concerning the non-compete. HB 1938 also would require that any litigation involving a resident of Pennsylvania be decided in a Pennsylvania state court under Pennsylvania law.  The Pennsylvania Bill was introduced and referred to Committee on November 27, 2017.

Massachusetts and Washington have also introduced legislation that would add requirements for employers seeking to use non-compete agreements. In Massachusetts, six separate bills have been introduced, three of which (HB 2371, SB 840, and SB 1017) would require employers to include a “garden leave clause” (or “other mutually agreed upon consideration”) in the non-compete agreements.  The garden leave clause would require employers to pay former employees, on a pro rata basis, either 50 percent (under HB 2371) or 100 percent (under SB 840 and SB1017) of their earnings for the duration of the restricted period.  The Massachusetts Bills were introduced and referred to Committee on January 23, 2017.  In Washington, lawmakers recently introduced a bill (HB 1967) which would require employers to “disclose the terms of the [non-compete] agreement in writing to the prospective employee no later than the time of the acceptance of the offer of employment or, if the agreement is entered into after the commencement of employment, the employer must provide independent consideration for the agreement.”  Additionally, HB 1967 would allow an employer to recover actual damages, statutory damages of $5,000, and attorneys’ fees and costs if an employer requires an employee to sign a non-compete agreement that contains provisions that the “employer knows are unenforceable.”  The Washington Bill was introduced in the House on February 2, 2017 and now is in Committee in the Senate.

At this point it is too early and difficult to predict whether the proposed laws will garner enough support to clear the necessary legislative and executive hurdles to be enacted. Sometimes state bills seeking to restrict the use of non-competes fail to gain enough traction.  Indeed, in 2017 both Maryland’s HB 506 and New Jersey’s SB 3518 died in their respective legislative houses soon after being introduced; Massachusetts especially has a track record of introducing bills intended to limit the use of non-compete agreements that fail to become laws.  Of the bills still in play, the Washington bill is furthest along and seems like it may get passed, though it too may die in Committee.  In any event, employers across all states (and in these states especially) should stay tuned and continue to draft narrowly tailored and enforceable non-competes.

On October 20, 2016—just about three weeks before the presidential election won by Donald Trump—the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission issued a remarkable document, entitled “Antitrust Guidance for Human Resources Professionals,” which outlined an aggressive policy promising to investigate and punish employers, and even individual Human Resources employees, who enter into unlawful agreements concerning recruitment or retention of employees.  As stated in that document, “[a]n agreement among competing employers to limit or fix the terms of employment for potential hires may violate the antitrust laws if the agreement constrains individual firm decision-making with regard to wages, salaries or benefits; terms of employment; or even job opportunities.”

For over a year, a question on the minds of many practitioners was whether the Antitrust Guidance document and policy would remain a priority for the DOJ and FTC under President Trump.  Those agencies had not issued public pronouncements, and there was uncertainty over whether conduct like wage-fixing and no-poaching agreements would continue to warrant serious civil or criminal scrutiny.  Would the new administration continue the Obama Administration’s antitrust guidance initiative or would it lean more toward a more laissez-faire, do-not-interfere with corporate management philosophy?

We may now have the answer.  The Trump administration has voiced support of this Obama-era policy.  On Jan. 19, 2018, U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division Makan Delrahim remarked at a conference that if employers have engaged in no-poaching or wage-fixing agreements since the issuance of the policy, their actions will be treated as criminal.  He noted the Antitrust Division has “been very active” in reviewing potential violations, and that, “[i]n the coming couple of months, you will see some announcements, and to be honest with you, I’ve been shocked about how many of these there are, but they’re real.”

Employers and practitioners should stay tuned for these announcements from the Antitrust Division.

Financial analytics firm Novantas, Inc. and two individual defendants closed out 2017 with a victory, securing the dismissal of claims by rival First Manhattan Consulting Group LLC (“First Manhattan Consulting Group”) [1], which accused them of competing unfairly by poaching First Manhattan Consulting Group’s employees in order to steal its trade secrets.  The result demonstrates the need for plaintiffs in such cases to be able to prove with specificity which trade secrets were taken or threatened by the defendants’ conduct.

The Complaint alleged that Novantas engaged in a “pattern and practice of poaching” First Manhattan Consulting Group’s employees, including defendants Peter Gilchrist and Andrew Frisbie in 2014, to gain access to First Manhattan Consulting Group’s confidential information.  These individuals, who were officers of First Manhattan Consulting Group, were subject to contractual confidentiality and employee non-solicitation obligations.  First Manhattan Consulting Group asserted causes of action for breach of contract against the individuals, for tortious interference with contract and unfair competition against Novantas, along with a misappropriation of trade secrets claim against all defendants.

The case went to trial in Supreme Court, New York County. Justice Barry Ostrager declined to submit the misappropriation claim to the jury, because the information presented by First Manhattan Consulting Group at trial did not appear to the Court to be a trade secret, and there was no testimony concerning trade secrets.  In its verdict, the jury unanimously found no liability on any of the other claims.  On December 19, 2017, the Court dismissed First Manhattan Consulting Group’s claims.

For practitioners, this outcome is a useful reminder that trade secret misappropriation claims require in-depth understanding of the client’s business, detailed allegations in pleadings of the legally required elements of a misappropriation claim and, at trial, a full presentation regarding the wrongdoing and what specific information was taken and how the plaintiff has been damaged.


[1] First Manhattan Consulting Group is unrelated to First Manhattan Co.

In First Western Capital Management Co. v. Malamed, Case Nos. 16-1434, 16-1465 & 16-1502 (10th Cir. Oct. 30, 2017), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction to a party under federal and state trade secret law where the court presumed that the party would be irreparably harmed absent the injunction.

Ordinarily, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, a moving party needs to establish, among other things, that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied. This requires the party to show that there is a significant risk that it will experience harm that cannot be compensated by money damages.  In First Western Capital Management, however, the district court held that the plaintiff (First Western) was not required to establish irreparable harm because both the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) and the Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”) provide for injunctive relief to prevent misuse of trade secrets, and the evidence showed that the defendant was misusing or threatening to misuse trade secrets regarding First Western’s clients.  Thus, the district court held that irreparable harm “presumptively exists and need not be separately established.”  Had First Western not been excused from showing irreparable harm, the district court would have denied its request for injunctive relief because evidence was presented that showed that monetary damages could be reasonably quantified and would adequately make First Western whole.

The Tenth Circuit explained that courts may presume irreparable harm only when a party is seeking an injunction under a statute that mandates injunctive relief as a remedy for a violation of the statute.  When Congress or a state legislature passes such a statute, it effectively has withdrawn the court’s discretion to determine whether such relief is appropriate.  By contrast, when a statute merely authorizes injunctive relief, courts may not presume irreparable harm, as doing so is contrary to equitable principles.  Because DTSA and CUTSA only authorize, but do not require, injunctive relief, and because the evidence presented to the district court showed that monetary damages could be quantified in order to compensate First Western, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of the injunction to First Western.  Legal practitioners thus should carefully review the applicable statute to determine whether it mandates or merely permits injunctive relief; where such relief is not required, they should make a fulsome showing that their client will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Robert D. Goldstein, and Brian E. Spang are pleased to be presenting 2017 Year in Review: Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Developments webinar on Wednesday, December 6, 2017 from 1:00 p.m. — 2:15 p.m. with Practical Law.

This webinar will provide insights into recent developments and expected trends in the evolving legal landscape of trade secrets and non-competition agreements. This webinar will focus on how to navigate this continually developing area and effectively protect client relationships and proprietary information.

Topics will include:

  • A review of recent developments and litigation trends under the Defend Trade Secrets (DTSA) since its enactment in 2016.
  • Newly passed state statutes addressing restrictive covenants, including who can enter into them, industry restrictions, and temporal restrictions.
  • Increased usage of “garden leave” clauses in lieu of non-competes.
  • Recent decisions regarding restrictive covenants, including whether a LinkedIn “invitation to link” is an improper solicitation.
  • Significant recent trade secret cases, including the level of detail required when pleading the existence of a trade secret.
  • Administrative agency developments regarding confidentiality clauses, including shifting agency trends under the Trump administration.
  • When are employers actually filing suit against former employees?

Click here for more information and to register for the webinar.