* Co-authored by Kathryn T. McGuigan.

In the recent case of Dowell v. Biosense Webster, Inc., No.B201439, the California Court of Appeal stated in dicta that it doubted the continued viability of the common law trade secret exception to covenants not to compete. The Dowell Court left open the question as to whether or to what extent courts will enforce agreements to protect trade secrets.

On January 29, 2010, in an unpublished opinion, Majestic Marketing, Inc. v. Nay, No. E047085 (Fourth District, Division Two), at least one California Court of Appeal appears to have recognized the viability of the trade secret exception to California Business & Professions Code ¶16600 prohibition of employee non-competition agreements.

The Majestic Marketing employee handbook included a clause which, among other things, identified company trade secrets and prohibited employees from using those trade secrets. Majestic brought suit against two former employees claiming that while they were still employed and after, the employees had misappropriated trade secrets (customer lists), in violation of the clause to form another company. The trial court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendant employees from using any Majestic customer information and barred them from doing business with about 3,000 Majestic customers for the two-year prohibition period contained in the employee handbook. The employees were also required to return all Majestic information and property. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

The Court agreed with the trial court that Majestic’s customer information was a protectable trade secret as defined under the clause in Majestic’s handbook and stated that “[d]espite California’s broad prohibition against noncompetition agreements, covenants not to compete may be enforced to the extent that enforcement is necessary to protect a company’s trade secrets.”

The Majestic Court decision therefore gives some indication that the trade secret exception may operate where the employer can establish that the information at issue is a trade secret. However, the California Supreme Court has yet to weigh in and for now, the viability of the trade secret exception remains an open issue.

Back to Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors


Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.