The 2024 restrictive covenant spotlight shined on the FTC's attempt to ban noncompetes on a national basis. As expected, on April 23rd the FTC voted 3 to 2, along party lines, to enact its ban and the lawsuits immediately followed. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted a preliminary and then permanent injunction that prevented the ban from taking effect on September 4th. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida soon followed with an injunction of its own and a Pennsylvania plaintiff dropped its attempt to block the ban after the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declined to issue an injunction. Although the FTC appealed both decisions enjoining the ban, the ban is dead for two reasons. One, both the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold the lower court rulings. Two, it is unlikely that the FTC will continue to pursue the ban once President Trump takes office and Andrew Ferguson, one of two FTC Commissioners who voted against the ban, becomes chair of the FTC and current FTC chair and main proponent of the ban, Lina Khan, is replaced with new Republican appointee Mark Meador, a partner at the antitrust law firm, Kressin Meador Powers LLC.
2024年，限制性契约方面的焦点落在了联邦贸易委员会（FTC）试图在全国范围内禁止竞业限制协议一事上。不出所料，4月23日，FTC按党派立场以3比2的投票结果通过了这项禁令，随后诉讼立刻纷至沓来。美国得克萨斯州北区地方法院批准了一项初步禁令，之后又转为永久禁令，使得该禁令无法在9月4日生效。美国佛罗里达州中区地方法院很快也发布了自己的禁令，而在宾夕法尼亚州东区地方法院拒绝发布禁令后，宾夕法尼亚州的一名原告放弃了阻止该禁令的努力。尽管FTC对这两项阻止禁令实施的裁决都提起了上诉，但这项禁令实际上已宣告失败，原因有两点。其一，第五和第十一巡回上诉法院都会维持下级法院的判决。其二，一旦特朗普就任总统，投票反对该禁令的两名联邦贸易委员会委员之一安德鲁・弗格森成为FTC主席，而现任FTC主席、该禁令的主要支持者丽娜・汗被共和党新任命的马克・米多尔取代（马克・米多尔是反垄断律师事务所Kressin Meador Powers LLC的合伙人），FTC就不太可能继续推行这项禁令了。
It will be interesting to see if the NLRB attempts to take on a larger role in the restrictive covenant space once the FTC exits the stage. On October 7th, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo took the position that "make-whole relief" that compensates for economic damages is a proper remedy when the NLRB determines an employer utilized an unlawful noncompete. This is a shift from the NLRB's practice of ordering rescission of unlawful contract terms to remedy unfair labor practices. Make-whole relief would be available if an employee demonstrates: (1) there was a vacancy available for a job with a better compensation package; (2) they were qualified for the job; and (3) they were discouraged from applying for or accepting the job because of the non-compete provision. Abruzzo also recommended that the NLRB amend its standard notice posting to alert employees that they may be entitled to damages and that they should contact an NLRB regional office if their employment efforts were negatively impacted by a noncompete provision.
如果FTC退出舞台，看看美国国家劳资关系委员会（NLRB）是否会试图在限制性契约领域发挥更大作用，这将很有意思。10月7日，NLRB法律顾问詹妮弗・阿布鲁佐表明立场，当NLRB判定雇主使用了非法的竞业禁止协议时，用以补偿经济损失的 “全面救济” 是一种恰当的补救措施。这与NLRB以往通过责令撤销非法合同条款来纠正不公平劳动行为的做法有所不同。如果员工能够证明以下几点，就可以获得全面救济：（3）由于竞业禁止条款，他们被阻止申请或接受该工作。阿布鲁佐还建议NLRB修改其标准通知公告，提醒员工，如果他们的求职努力因竞业禁止条款受到负面影响，他们可能有权获得损害赔偿，并应联系NLRB地区办公室。
Restrictive covenant legislation was relatively light compared to other years but Delaware did give us two interesting cases at the end of 2024.
与往年相比，限制性契约相关立法活动相对较少，但特拉华州在2024年底确实为我们带来了两个有趣的案例。
Looking at the states, the unofficial tally of restrictive covenant bills introduced in 2024 is 92 bills in 39 state legislatures. As is the case every year, most of this legislation never made it out of committee and to a vote, much less to the governor's desk for signature. Of the few bills that were signed by a governor, Maryland banned noncompetes for veterinarians and vet techs, and also restricted noncompetes for physicians and other healthcare providers who make less than $350,000. Rhode Island voided noncompetes for advanced practice registered nurses and Iowa banned noncompetes for a) health care employment agencies and their workers and b) health care technology platforms and their independent nursing professionals. More healthcare-specific noncompete restrictions are on the horizon in 2025, including Pennsylvania establishing a maximum one year restriction for certain healthcare practitioners and Illinois declaring noncompetes unenforceable for licensed health care professionals who treat veterans and first responders.
纵观各州，据非官方统计，2024年39个州的立法机构共提出92 项限制性契约法案。与往年一样，这些立法大多未能走出委员会进入投票环节，更别提送到州长案头签署了。在少数几部获州长签署的法案中，马里兰州禁止兽医和兽医技术人员签订竞业禁止协议，还对年收入低于35万美元的医生及其他医疗服务提供者的竞业禁止协议加以限制。罗德岛州宣布针对高级执业注册护士的竞业禁止协议无效，爱荷华州则禁止以下两类签订竞业禁止协议：
（b）医疗保健技术平台及其独立护理专业人员。2025年，预计会出台更多针对医疗保健行业的竞业禁止限制措施。其中，宾夕法尼亚州将对某些医疗从业者设定最长一年的竞业限制，伊利诺伊州将宣布，针对为退伍军人和急救人员提供治疗的持证医疗专业人员，其竞业禁止协议不具可执行性。
In addition, almost 20% of states and the District of Columbia now use income thresholds to limit which employees may be subject to certain restrictive covenants. (Colorado–$123,750 for noncompetition and $74,250 for nonsolicitation, D.C. –$154,200, Illinois–$75,000 for noncompetition and $45,000 for nonsolicitation, Maine–$60,240, Maryland–$46,800, Massachusetts–non-exempt employees, Nevada – hourly employees, New Hampshire–$30,160, Oregon–$113,241, Rhode Island–$37,650 or non-exempt employees, Virginia–$73,320, and Washington–$120,560). We anticipate more states will adopt compensation thresholds in 2025.
此外，如今近20%的州以及哥伦比亚特区采用收入门槛来限制哪些员工可能受到特定限制性契约的约束。（科罗拉多州—竞业禁止为123,750美元，禁止招徕为74,250美元；哥伦比亚特区—154,200美元；伊利诺伊州—竞业禁止为75,000美元，禁止招徕为45,000美元；缅因州—60,240美元；马里兰州—46,800美元；马萨诸塞州—非豁免员工；内华达州—小时工；新罕布什尔州—30,160美元；俄勒冈州—113,241美元；罗德岛州—37,650美元或非豁免员工；弗吉尼亚州—73,320美元；华盛顿州—120,560美元）。我们预计2025年将有更多州采用薪酬门槛标准。
Finally, and as we have discussed in previous articles, Delaware continues to be (and will continue to be) a primary focus of noncompete law. In Q1 of 2024, a Delaware Court, in the case of Cantor Fitzgerald v. Ainslie, determined that a forfeiture clause relating to a restrictive covenant violation should be analyzed "under a more deferential, contract law standard that respects the mutual intent of willing, competent parties" instead of the "public policy against noncompete agreements" and the requirement that the restrictive covenant meet the Delaware court's definition of "reasonableness." Consequently, a company's determination that a former employee violated a restrictive covenant clause and, in doing so, forfeited certain compensation (bonus, stock options, grants, deferred compensation, etc..) will be upheld absent "unconscionability, bad faith, or other extraordinary circumstances." A request for injunctive relief, however, will still be subject to the normal review of "reasonableness." Given the Court's ruling, a company could succeed on clawing back or declaring a forfeit of the departing employee's compensation even if the company is unsuccessful in obtaining injunctive relief.
最后，正如我们在之前的文章中所讨论的，特拉华州过去是（未来也仍将是）竞业禁止法律的主要关注点。2024年第一季度，特拉华州法院在 Cantor Fitzgerald 诉Ainslie一案中判定，对于违反限制性契约的没收条款，应“依据一种更尊重自愿且有行为能力双方共同意图的合同法标准” 进行分析，而非遵循“反对竞业禁止协议的公共政策” 以及限制性契约需符合特拉华州法院“合理性”定义的要求。因此，除非存在“显失公平、恶意或其他特殊情况”，否则公司认定前雇员违反限制性契约条款并因此没收其某些薪酬（奖金、股票期权、赠予、递延薪酬等）的决定将得到支持。然而，对于禁令救济的申请，仍将按照“合理性”的常规标准进行审查。鉴于法院的这一裁决，即便公司未能成功获得禁令救济，也有可能成功追回或宣布没收离职员工的薪酬。
On December 18th, the Delaware Supreme Court made clear that the Cantor Fitzgerald ruling applies to all types of forfeiture-for-competition provisions, including RSU awards. In doing so, the Delaware Supreme Court relied on Delaware's support for freedom of contract and again differentiated forfeiture-for-competition provisions from the types of restrictive covenants typically found in employment agreements. The key difference: forfeiture-for-competition provisions do not restrict the ability of employees to work for a competitor.
12月18日，特拉华州最高法院明确表示，Cantor Fitzgerald案的裁决适用于所有类型的因竞业而没收权益的条款，包括限制性股票单位（RSU）奖励。在此过程中，特拉华州最高法院依据特拉华州对契约自由的支持原则，再次将因竞业而没收权益的条款与就业协议中常见的限制性契约类型区分开来。关键区别在于：因竞业而没收权益的条款并不限制员工为竞争对手工作的能力。
The Delaware Supreme Court, in Sunder Energy, LLC v. Tyler Jackson, et al., also affirmed a lower court's decision to not blue pencil an overbroad noncompete even though the former owner/employee was directly and actively competing with Sunder. In a not so nice shot at Sunder, the Delaware Supreme Court noted that Sunder's noncompete would prevent "Jackson's daughter from selling Girl Scout cookies" and essentially accused Sunder of acting in bad faith by:
在“Sunder Energy诉泰勒・杰克逊等人”一案中，特拉华州最高法院维持了下级法院的判决，即即便前所有者/雇员正直接且积极地与Sunder公司竞争，也不对范围过宽的竞业禁止协议进行修正。特拉华州最高法院毫不客气地批评了Sunder公司，指出其竞业禁止协议甚至会阻止“杰克逊的女儿售卖女童军饼干”，并从本质上指责Sunder公司存在以下恶意行为：
-
Not involving Jackson, who was a minority owner of the acquired company, in any negotiations or discussions concerning the restrictive covenants;
-
Acknowledging that its members would not have been able to understand the restrictive covenants without the help of counsel;
-
Sending Jackson the restrictive covenant agreement on New Year's Eve and encouraging Jackson to sign the agreement "before midnight." (Jackson signed the agreement less than an hour after receiving it); and
-
Jackson received "minimal-to-no separate compensation" in exchange for being bound by the restrictive covenants.
①未让作为被收购公司少数股东的杰克逊参与任何有关限制性契约的谈判或讨论；
②承认其成员若没有法律顾问的帮助，根本无法理解这些限制性契约；
③在新年前夜将限制性契约协议发给杰克逊，并催促他“在午夜前”签署协议。（杰克逊收到协议后不到一小时就签了字）；以及
④杰克逊因受这些限制性契约约束，得到的“额外补偿极少甚至没有”。
Given these facts, the Delaware Supreme Court reasoned that blue penciling the restrictive covenants would "create perverse incentives for employers drafting restrictive covenants," and cause employers to "be less incentivized to craft reasonable restrictions from the outset." Accordingly, and as we have cautioned in prior articles, companies should no longer assume that Delaware Chancellors will automatically favor businesses when examining a restrictive covenant.
鉴于这些事实，特拉华州最高法院认为，对限制性契约进行修正会“给起草限制性契约的雇主带来不良激励”，导致雇主“从一开始就缺乏制定合理限制条款的动力”。因此，正如我们在之前的文章中所提醒的，企业不应再认为特拉华州大法官在审查限制性契约时会自动偏袒企业。
A couple of big trade secret verdicts but the "mother of all trade secret verdicts" gets tossed.
有几起重大的商业秘密裁决案件，但其中堪称“商业秘密裁决之最”的一起却被推翻了。
As with previous years, a couple of massive trade secret verdicts were issued in 2024. Massachusetts-based Insulet won a $452 million trade secrets verdict after jurors found that a South Korean company stole its trade secrets for a wearable insulin pump patch. In California, Propel Fuels won a $604.9 million trade secrets verdict against Phillips 66 for Phillips 66 allegedly stealing Propel's trade secrets when it was looking to acquire Propel. Propel also filed a motion for an additional $1.2 billion in exemplary damages since, according to Propel, Phillips 66's trade secret theft was willful and malicious. The court has yet to rule on Propel's motion.
与往年一样，2024年作出了几起涉及巨额赔偿的商业秘密裁决。总部位于马萨诸塞州的Insulet公司胜诉，获赔4.52亿美元。陪审团认定，一家韩国公司窃取了其可穿戴胰岛素泵贴片的商业秘密。在加利福尼亚州，Propel燃料公司起诉Phillips 66公司胜诉，获赔6.049亿美元。Propel称，Phillips 66在寻求收购Propel时，窃取了其商业秘密。Propel还提出动议，要求额外获得12亿美元的惩罚性赔偿，因为据其所述，Phillips 66对商业秘密的窃取是故意且恶意的。法院尚未就Propel的动议作出裁决。
Yet, the biggest trade secret verdict in 2024 was a 2022 verdict that was tossed by the Virgina Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court reversed a $2 billion trade secrets verdict for Appian Corp. against rival software company Pegasystems Inc. The verdict was the largest jury award in state history. According to the Appeals Court, the trial court erred when it a) issued a jury instruction relieving Appian of its "proper burden to prove causation between the alleged misappropriation and any damages" and b) allowed Appian to rely on Pegasystems' total sales in order to prove unjust enrichment damages. Appian has appealed the Appeals Court's decision to the Virginia Supreme Court. Interestingly, Appian allegedly had the judgment insured for between $500 million and $750 million. Thus, Appian may still be entitled to a huge recovery even if the Virginia Supreme Court declines to accept the case or reverse the Appeals Court.
然而，2024年最大的一起商业秘密裁决，实则是2022年的一项裁决，却被弗吉尼亚州上诉法院推翻。该上诉法院撤销了对Appian有利的一项20亿美元商业秘密裁决，该裁决是Appian起诉竞争对手软件公司Pegasystems获得的，此裁决所涉赔偿金额为该州历史上陪审团裁决的最高金额。据上诉法院称，初审法院存在以下错误：其一，向陪审团发出指示，免除了Appian“证明所谓侵权行为与任何损害之间因果关系的适当举证责任”；其二，允许Appian 依靠Pegasystems的总销售额来证明不当得利造成的损害。Appian已就上诉法院的这一决定向弗吉尼亚州最高法院提起上诉。有趣的是，据称Appian为该判决投保了5亿至7.5亿美元。因此，即便弗吉尼亚州最高法院拒绝受理此案或维持上诉法院的判决，Appian仍可能有权获得巨额赔偿。