1 / 13

Non-Competes Before the California Supreme Court

Non-Competes Before the California Supreme Court. Business and Professions Code Section 16600. “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

howard-stevenson
Download Presentation

Non-Competes Before the California Supreme Court

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Non-Competes Before the California Supreme Court

  2. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” (Enacted 1872, renumbered and added to Business and Professions Code in 1941.)

  3. Advanced Bionics v. Medtronic • Medtronic: Manufacturer of high-tech medical equipment, holding 90% of a $220 million market for spinal cord stimulation devices • Advanced Bionics: A California company with a competing device pending FDA approval • Mark Stultz: Medtronic’s Senior Product Manager for neurostimulation devices

  4. Medtronic’s Non-Compete For two years, the employee may not do any kind of work “in connection with the design, development, manufacture, marketing, or sale of a Competitive Product” for sale anywhere that Medtronic “actively markets . . . or intends to actively market” a similar Medtronic product.

  5. A “Competitive Product” is a product: • that is “of the same general type, performs similar functions, or is used for the same purposes as a Medtronic Product on which the employee worked during the last two years of employment” or • about which the employee “received or had knowledge of Confidential Information.”

  6. California 6/7/00: Advanced Bionics and Stultz sue in California state court to enjoin enforcement of non-compete 6/8/00: Advanced Bionics gives notice of 6/9 TRO hearing Minnesota 6/7/00: Stultz resigns from Medtronic Procedural Ping-Pong

  7. California 6/9/00: Medtronic files notice of removal to federal court 6/16/00: Federal court remands case to state court 6/21/00: Medtronic files motion to dismiss Minnesota 6/9/00: Medtronic sues in Minnesota, obtains TRO limiting Advanced Bionics’ and Stultz’ ability to obtain California injunctive relief

  8. California 7/21/00: Court denies Medtronic’s motion to dismiss 8/8/00: Court issues TRO barring further prosecution of Minnesota action Minnesota 8/3/00: Court grants preliminary injunction limiting Stultz’s work for Advanced Bionics

  9. California Minnesota 8/16/00: Court amends preliminary injunction “nunc pro tunc” to bar Advanced Bionics and Stultz from seeking relief in California that would limit Minnesota action 8/22/00: Advanced Bionics and Stultz appeal TRO

  10. California 9/22/00: Medtronic appeals TRO 3/22/01: Court of Appeal affirms TRO 6/13/2001: Supreme Court grants review Minnesota 6/26/01: Court of Appeals affirms TRO

  11. Issues Raised by Medtronic’sPetition for Review • What is the effect of filing first? • When can a court issue an anti-suit injunction?

  12. Waiting in the Wings—Walia Walia v. Aetna, Inc., 93 Cal.App.4th 1213 (11/21/01): • The Court of Appeal affirmed a wrongful termination judgment arising from termination for refusal to sign a non-compete—$180,000 compensatories, $1,080,000 punitives. • The Supreme Court granted review on 2/27/02, but deferred briefing pending its decision in Advanced Bionics.

  13. Some Issues Raised by Aetna’sPetition for Review • Are there circumstances under which section 16600 allows the use of non-competes to prevent disclosure of trade secrets? • To what extent are employers subject to tort liability and punitive damages for requiring California employees to sign non-competes?

More Related