Non-compete litigation is generally fast and furious, with witness interviews, fact gathering, drafting, requests for injunctive relief, and expedited discovery all happening within a very compressed timetable. Accordingly, a recent decision issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals (Think Tank Software Development Corporation v. Chester, Inc., et al.) in a case filed in April of 2002 is a “head scratcher”: how could any non-compete case take nine years to resolve? The short answer is that after some initial skirmishing over a restraining order, a change of venue, and the dissolution of that restraining order, the case apparently went dormant for two years. Then, after an unsuccessful motion to dismiss the case for want of prosecution in 2004, the case lurched into discovery which lasted until November 30, 2009. The defendants then successfully moved for summary judgment, after which the case moved on to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in part and reversed in part, sending the case back to the trial court . . . for still further proceedings.

Apart from its Dickensian length, the case is noteworthy for its recitation of Indiana no compete law on many frequently encountered issues, including the following:

• “[a] covenant may not be enforced to preclude a former employee from soliciting a customer that was not a customer during the employee’s employment”;

• “a covenant not to compete may even be enforced absent a territorial limitation where the covenant sufficiently restricts the class of prohibited contacts”;

• “when objectionable and nonobjectionable terms appear in a contract, the contract may be divisible and the reasonable limits may be enforced”;

• “[a] word may be added to the covenant ‘for the simple purposes of making the clause grammatically correct”;

• “[t]he proper measure of damages for breach of a covenant is the plaintiff’s lost net profits”; and

• “[a] damage award ‘does not require any specific degree of certainty, so long as the amount awarded is supported by the evidence and is not based on speculation or conjecture.’”

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.