Publications

Two Questions Regarding Noncompete Covenants under California Law

GauravKrishanGaurav Krishan, attorney with Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP discusses under what circumstances noncompete covenanants are enforceable under California law. Gaurav’s practice specializes in corporate transactions, including M&A, dispositions and recapitalizations, private equity transactions, and general corporate matters for both public and private clients, focusing on startup and emerging growth companies.

_____________________________________

Under What Circumstances are Noncompete Covenants Enforceable Under California Law?

Under California law, noncompete covenants are generally unenforceable due to California’s strong public policy against restraints on trade.  However, there are certain narrow circumstances in the employment context and in connection with a sale of a business in which noncompete covenants may be enforceable.

One exception to the general rule that noncompete covenants are unenforceable under California law applies in the context of the sale of a business.  Under California Business and Professions Code §16601, in certain circumstances, any person who sells (i) the goodwill of a business, (ii) of all of his or her ownership interest in the business entity, or (iii) all or substantially all of the operating assets of a business, together with the goodwill of the business, may agree to refrain from carrying on a similar business.  The legislature enacted this exception because it reasoned that once the goodwill of a business is sold, it would be unfair to permit the seller to engage in competition which diminishes the value of the assets sold.  In order to enhance the enforceability of any such noncompete, the parties should (a) include a clear indication that in the sale transaction the parties valued the goodwill of the business in determining the sales price and (b) make sure that in a transaction involving the sale of ownership interests, the owner of the business sells all of his or her ownership interests in the business entity.

In the employment context, noncompetes are generally enforceable during the term of employment but are generally unenforceable following termination of employment.  However, some California courts have held that certain post-termination restrictive covenants are enforceable when necessary to prevent a former employee from revealing trade secrets to competitors.  In particular, California courts have held that restrictive covenants that are specifically designed and narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets may be enforceable.  Accordingly, courts would not likely uphold a traditional noncompete covenant that is limited to a specific time period and/or geographic area but may consider upholding, for example, a noncompete covenant that prohibits a former employee from competing for the business of specific customers that the employee learned about during his or her employment for a certain period of time following termination.

What Scope, Time and Geography Limitations on Noncompete Covenants have been found to be Enforceable under California Law in Connection with a Sale of Business?

            While not expressly stated in the language of the statue, California courts have held that a noncompete covenant in connection with the sale of a business is only enforceable to the extent it is reasonable and necessary, in terms of its scope, time and geography, to protect the buyer’s interests.  In any specific case, the reasonableness of a noncompete covenant will require the balancing of the interest of the entity protected, the person restrained, and the general public.  With respect to the scope of the activities prohibited, §16601 California Business and Professions Code permits a prohibition on “carrying on a similar business.”  Generally speaking, courts have held interpreted this language to mean that a noncompete covenant will cover direct or indirect transactions or solicitation of substantial business activities in competition with the buyer (i.e., single or isolated transactions in competition with the buyer are not prohibited).  With respect to geographical scope, the noncompete may limit competition in any area where the business is carried on, including production, promotional and marketing activities (i.e., not just where the business has physical locations).  Finally, with respect to temporal scope, the statute provides noncompete is enforceable for so long as the buyer continues to carry on the business.  In applying the statute, California courts have been willing to uphold noncompete covenants for as long as five years under the right circumstances.

______________________________________

For more information regarding noncompete covenants or similar inquiries, please contact Gaurav Krishan at gkrishan@stubbsalderton.com or (818)444-4516.

Posted in Attorneys, Corporate & Business Matters Practice Area, Mergers & Acquisitions Practice Area, Publications | Tagged California Law, Gaurav Krishan, noncompete, Noncompete Conenants, SAM, Stubbs Alderton, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles | Comments Off

Patent Law News Flash from Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP

Important Business News

from

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP

New U.S. Patent Law Awarding Patents on a First-to-File Basis Goes into Effect

What Every Entrepreneur Needs to Know to Turn the
New Law into a Business Advantage

On March 15, 2013, U.S. patent law will change favoring inventors who first file a patent application over earlier inventors of the same invention who file a patent application later.  This is a part of the patent law reform enacted in 2011.  With this change, entrepreneurs will need to change the way they think about obtaining patent protection for their inventions.  Here are some suggested business practices for adapting to the new law:

  • Make faster decisions about filing patent applications.  Inventors can no longer rely upon being the first to invent and take a wait and see approach in deciding whether to file a patent application.  Companies in the business of continuous innovation should adopt procedures for identifying patentable inventions and quickly assessing the value of obtaining patent protection.  Filing a patent application establishes an inventor’s priority over other patent applications for the same invention with a later filing date.
  • Decide whether or not to pursue patent protection before publicly disclosing the invention.  The new patent law does not change the 1-year grace period for filing a patent application after first selling, publicly using or publishing a description of an invention.  But, this grace period applies only to U.S. patents.  To qualify for patent protection outside the U.S., inventors must file a patent application before disclosing, using or selling products or services incorporating their inventions.  Companies need to make patent filing decisions before taking actions that render their inventions ineligible for patent protection abroad.
  • Ensure employees and developers do not use other peoples’ ideas.  A patent, even if the application from which it issued was filed first, can be invalidated if the invention was stolen or derived from someone else.  Employees and contractors tasked with innovating should be advised not to use inventions developed by anyone outside the company without written authorization of the invention’s owner.  Deriving inventions from others is common in joint development projects, but doing so puts at risk a company’s investment in obtaining patent protection for these inventions.
  • Keep careful records of commercial use of technology.  Commercial use of patented technology at least one year prior to the date the patent was filed is a defense to infringement of that patent.  This defense, although not new, may now be applied to a broader array of patented technologies.  Companies should collect evidence of research activities and of the conception, design, development, testing and commercialization of technology it uses.  Photographs, technical specifications, documentation, emails, operating procedures, invoices, receipts, order forms, canceled checks, samples and test results may be valuable evidence in establishing a company’s prior use of patented technology to defend a future patent infringement lawsuit.

Companies should consult experienced intellectual property counsel to ensure their patent protection policies are up to date with the recent changes in U.S. patent laws.

How Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP can help.  We are a business law firm with particular expertise in intellectual property law.  Our attorneys have extensive experience in developing intellectual property protection strategies to enable businesses to maximize the value of their inventions. We inform our clients how to best update their IP strategies, patent filing procedures and invention assignment agreements and how to use today’s U.S. patent laws to their competitive advantage.

Kevin D. DeBré leads the firm’s Intellectual Property and Technology Transactions Practice Group advising entrepreneurs and companies on how to use technology and intellectual property in building successful businesses.  Kevin is a registered patent attorney and has over 20 years of experience in structuring and negotiating intellectual property-driven deals.

For more information, contact Kevin at (818) 444-4521 or kdebre@stubbsalderton.com.

Posted in Attorneys, Firm News, Intellectual Property Practice Area, News, Press, Publications | Tagged Intellectual Property, Kevin DeBre, Patent Law, patent law reform, Patents, SAM, Stubbs Alderton, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles | Comments Off

Louis Wharton Featured in San Fernando Valley Bar Association Article – “Securities Laws Fundamentals: What Your Clients Need to Know About Raising Capital”

Stubbs Alderton Partner Louis Wharton was featured in this month’s San Fernando Valley Bar Journal’s article – “Securities Laws Fundamentals:  What Your Clients Need to Know About Raising Capital.”  Louis  discusses the determination of exemptions, Safe Harbor exemptions, crowdfunding exemptions, and other issues that startups should bear in mind when raising capital.

To read the full article, click here.
For more information about this topic, contact Louis Wharton at 818.444.4509 or lwharton@stubbsalderton.com

Posted in Attorneys, Corporate & Business Matters Practice Area, Publications | Tagged angel investors, Crowdfunding Exemptions, exemptions, Louis Wharton, Raising Capital, Safe Harbor exemptions, SAM, San Fernando Valley Bar Journal, Securities Laws, SFVBJ, Startups, Stubbs Alderton, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, Venture Capital | Comments Off
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 20