Supreme Court Declines To Resolve Circuit Split On Forum Selection Clauses

Late last year, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc., which was brought to the Supreme Court for review from an opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 F.4th 956 (9th Cir. 2022).  At the heart of Howmedica (as explained in a previous article, here) was the classic Erie law school hypothetical – does federal or state law control in federal court when deciding if a party’s contractual forum selection clause preempts a state statutory forum selection mandate?

o briefly summarize the Howmedica case: A former sales representative for Howmedica had an employment agreement containing a New Jersey forum selection and choice of law provision, as well as noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses. He ultimately resigned and went to work for a competitor. When Howmedica attempted to enforce the restrictive covenants, the former employee asserted that the forum selection and choice of law clauses were void under California Labor Code § 925, because he was a California resident.

The former employee filed a declaratory judgment action in the Central District of California, asking the court to declare those provisions void. Howmedica moved to transfer venue to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The district court denied the motion, holding that state, not federal, law governed the validity of a forum selection clause in a contract, and that the forum selection clause was therefore invalid and unenforceable. The Ninth Circuit agreed, and held that § 1404(a) and Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988), “do not broadly preempt all state laws controlling how parties may agree to or void a forum-selection clause.” Howmedica then petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari review.

y applying state law to decide the validity of a forum selection clause, the Ninth Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit in the minority on this issue.  See, e.g., Jackson v. Payday Fin., LLC, 764 F.3d 765, 774 (7th Cir. 2014). The Second, Third,[1] Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits have all gone the other way—they hold that federal law as pronounced in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972), applies to determine the validity and enforceability of forum selection clauses.

Despite the circuit split, the Supreme Court denied Howmedica’s petition for certiorari on December 12, 2022. This means that in practical terms, significant uncertainty remains with respect to how contractual forum selection clauses will be treated in the face of the increasing number of state statutes that mandate a given forum for particular subjects, such as employment restrictive covenants.

But, the case law is also far from uniform on a multitude of subsidiary issues.  For example, courts have come to opposite conclusions on whether a given state’s statutory forum selection mandate (such as in the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (“MNAA”)) in and of itself demonstrates that state’s clear public policy for the purposes of deciding a motion for transfer. In Hilb Grp. of New England, LLC v. LePage, for example, the Eastern District of Virginia held that “no Massachusetts court has held that the Massachusetts Noncompete Agreement Act [which mandates that all cases involving Massachusetts residents must take place in Massachusetts] manifests the state’s strong public policy. Thus, the enforcement of the Agreement’s forum selection clause would not go against a strong public policy of Massachusetts.” No. 3:21-cv-757, 2022 WL 1538583, at *4 (E.D. Va. May 16,2022).

n contrast, the Delaware Chancery Court came to the opposite conclusion regarding whether a statute demonstrates a state’s public policy. In AG Res. Holdings, LLC v. Terral, the Delaware Chancery Court held that “[t]he Louisiana [forum selection] laws cited above are clear pronouncements by the Louisiana legislature regarding its public policy on matters of employment and competition. Under the circumstances, Louisiana’s interests must be respected and enforced.” No. CV 2020-0850-JRS, 2021 WL 486831, at *5 (Del. Ch. Feb. 10, 2021). Idaho provides another example. Idaho Code § 29-110(1) states that it is against Idaho public policy for a contract to restrict a party’s ability to enforce its rights in Idaho courts. Idaho courts have interpreted this statute as evidence of the state’s “strong public policy” against forum selection clauses that mandate proceedings outside of Idaho.  See, e.g., Off-Spec Sols., LLC v. Transportation Invs., LLC, 168 Idaho 734, 739, 487 P.3d 326, 331 (2021); see also Gemini Technologies, Inc. v. Smith & Wesson, Corp., 931 F.3d 911, at 915-17 (9th Cir. 2020).

This thorny issue will continue to cause uncertainty for employers operating in multiple states, as well as employers whose workforce is spread out across more than one state.  Without clear guidance from the Supreme Court, practitioners must continue to be sensitive to the ever-changing landscape of state laws and the judicial decisions interpreting those laws, in order to understand where a case may eventually be heard, and what laws may apply to the dispute.

 

Sarah Tishler is the author of this article. Sarah is a commercial litigator whose practice focuses on complex business disputes in state and federal courts, including intellectual property, breach of contract, and fraud claims.


Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment.

We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.


[1] By way of example of the disparate outcomes in different jurisdictions, analyzing the very same forum selection clause, in the very same employment contract at issue, the District of New Jersey upheld the forum selection clause, and rejected arguments that California Labor Code § 925 invalidated it. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Howard, 2020 WL 1102494, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1082601, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 5, 2020). Same facts—opposite outcome.

 

Russell Beck and Hannah Joseph to Speak at Trade Secret Summit

Russell Beck and Hannah Joseph will be speaking at the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s two-day Trade Secret Summit. The in-person conference, with a remote viewing option, will take place on November 8 and 9, 2021, at the headquarters of SolarWinds in Austin, Texas.

Registration and additional information can be found here.

The AIPLA Trade Secret Summit is the leading trade secret conference in the nation, with speakers from across the spectrum of private practitioners, in-house counsel, government, and academia.

Russell will be moderating and speaking on the panel, “Federal Involvement and Enforcement: Biden’s Executive Order and other federal government regulation and enforcement.”

Hannah will be speaking on a panel titled, “Protecting Trade Secrets in a post-COVID-19 World: Trends, traps, and other hot topics for protecting trade secrets in the remote work environment.”

__

For up-to-the-minute analysis of legal issues concerning noncompete agreements in Massachusetts and across the United States, read Russell Beck’s blog, Fair Competition Law.

eck Reed Riden LLP is among the leading authorities in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law, and our experience handling these matters is backed by our extensive employment law and business litigation experience. Our hand-picked team combines attorneys with complementary expertise and practical experience.

Beck Reed Riden LLP’s thought leadership in the area of trade secret law and noncompete law is regularly relied on by the press, by academic researchers, and by policymakers. In 2016, the White House issued a report entitled, “Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses,” relying in part on Beck Reed Riden LLP’s research and analysis, including its 50 State Noncompete Survey.

Russell Beck’s work in this area is well recognized, and includes:

  • Over thirty years of experience working on trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition matters
  • Assisting the Obama White House as part of a small working group to develop President Obama’s Noncompete Call to Action
  • Authoring the book Negotiating, Drafting, and Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements and Related Restrictive Covenants (6th ed., MCLE, Inc. 2021), used by other lawyers to help them with their noncompete matters
  • Authoring the book Trade Secrets Law for the Massachusetts Practitioner (1st ed. MCLE 2019), covering trade secrets nationally, with a focus on Massachusetts law
  • Drafting and advising on legislation for the Massachusetts Legislature to define, codify, and improve noncompetition law
  • Teaching Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants at Boston University School of Law
  • Founding and administering the award-winning blog, Fair Competition Law
  • Establishing and administering the Noncompete Lawyers and Trade Secret Protection groups on LinkedIn, with over 1,660 and 870 members, respectively, around the world
  • Founded and chaired the Trade Secret / Noncompete Practice for an AmLaw 100 firm

In addition, Russell is the only boutique lawyer to be included in the Legal 500 as a leading lawyer in trade secrets, and has been honored for his work in this area of law in the 2021 Chambers USA Guide, which stated that Russell “is one of the most preeminent noncompete and restrictive covenant lawyers in the country.”

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment.

We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

 

 

Russell Beck to Speak at Sandpiper Partners on Trade Secrets

On Tuesday, November 17, 2020, Russell Beck will be speaking at Sandpiper Partners’ fourth annual program on trade secrets. The program, which will be held online, is titled “Trade Secrets: Protection, Enforcement and Litigation East Coast Conference.”

The one-day program starts at 3 p.m. ET on November 17, 2020. Registration is available here.

The program brings together judges, in-house counsel, and outside lawyers from across the country. Attendees will learn about the following topics:

  • Overview of trade secret law
  • Trade secret protective measures
  • What to do when there’s been a theft or one is suspected?
  • Avoiding being accused of misappropriation
  • Criminal or civil enforcement or both?
  • Choice of forum
  • Types/sources of evidence
  • Identifying and protecting trade secrets in litigation
  • Discovery in trade secret cases
  • Judicial observations on provisional relief and evidentiary hearings in a pandemic
  • Damages
  • Judicial observations on successful trial strategies in civil trade secret cases, generally and in the age of COVID-19
  • Criminal prosecution of trade secrets theft

For up-to-the-minute analysis of legal issues concerning trade secrets and non-compete agreements in Massachusetts and across the United States, read Russell Beck’s blog, Fair Competition Law.

eck Reed Riden LLP is among the leading authorities in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law, and our experience handling these matters is backed by our extensive employment law and business litigation experience. Our hand-picked team combines attorneys with complementary expertise and practical experience.

The Wall Street Journal featured Beck Reed Riden LLP’s noncompete agreement experience. In 2016, the White House issued a report entitled, “Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses,” relying in part on Beck Reed Riden LLP’s research and analysis, including its 50 State Noncompete Survey.

Russell Beck’s work in this area is well recognized, and includes:

  • Over twenty five years working on trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition matters
  • Assisting the Obama White House as part of a small working group to develop President Obama’s Noncompete Call to Action
  • Authoring the book Negotiating, Drafting, and Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements and Related Restrictive Covenants (5th ed., MCLE, Inc. 2015), used by other lawyers to help them with their noncompete matters
  • Authoring the book Trade Secrets Law for the Massachusetts Practitioner (1st ed. MCLE 2019), covering trade secrets nationally, with a focus on Massachusetts law
  • Drafting and advising on legislation for the Massachusetts Legislature to define, codify, and improve noncompetition law
  • Teaching Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants at Boston University School of Law
  • Founding and administrating the award-winning blog, Fair Competition Law
  • Establishing and administrating the Noncompete Lawyers and Trade Secret Protection groups on LinkedIn, with over 1,600 and 850 members, respectively, around the world
  • Founded and chaired the Trade Secret / Noncompete Practice for an AmLaw 100 firm

In addition, Russell was honored for his work in this area of law in the 2020 Chambers USA Guide, which stated that Russell Beck is “an expert in the field of trade secret and restrictive covenant law,” and is also noted for his “ability to adjust and come up with successful solutions.” Chambers noted that Russell “basically wrote the new Massachusetts statute on noncompetes” and that “he’s an expert in employee mobility and nonrestrictive covenants.”

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment.

We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

Law360 Publishes Russell Beck’s Analysis of Misconceptions in the Noncompete Debate

Russell Beck‘s analysis of the misconceptions concerning the impacts of noncompete agreements was published by Law360 under the title, “Misconceptions In The Debate About Noncompetes.”

According to Law360, Russell Beck’s article is one of the “10 Most-Read” employment Law360 articles of 2019.

The analysis focuses on how the mistaken assumption that correlation implies causation has been increasingly informing decisions in the ongoing debate about the effects of noncompetes on the economy.

In particular, the analysis addresses two primary errors: (1) assuming that California’s ban on employee noncompetes is the reason for Silicon Valley’s success; (2) interpreting the developing research on the impacts of noncompetes as establishing that noncompetes are bad for the economy; and (3) failing to understand the unintended consequences of a ban on noncompetes, including, in particular, the elimination of an important tool for the protection of trade secrets.

The analysis ends with a caution to lawmakers considering changes to noncompete laws:

The proper regulation of employee noncompetes is an extremely complicated issue with no silver bullet. If policymakers believe that the prevailing market forces are insufficient to adequately limit the abusive use of noncompetes, legislative action is certainly an appropriate response. But, absent making the affirmative decision to base legislative policy on a visceral antipathy toward noncompetes, policymakers should engage in a critical analysis and avoid the temptation to rush to judgment. In particular, they need to be aware of – and at least consider, if not carefully weigh – the unintended adverse consequences of a policy that would ban noncompetes wholesale. The research into those considerations is, however, even more nascent than the research into the theorized adverse impacts of noncompetes.

In light of this, lawmakers should tread cautiously down any path that leads to the elimination of noncompete agreements. Indeed, the Obama Administration in its Call to Action and every state changing its noncompete laws has so far recognized this as well – and all have taken a tempered, considered approach.

The full analysis is also available (without subscription) at on Fair Competition Law as “Correlation Does Not Imply Causation: The False Comparison of Silicon Valley and Boston’s Route 128.”

____

For up-to-the-minute analysis of legal issues concerning noncompete agreements in Massachusetts and across the United States, read Russell Beck’s blog, Fair Competition Law.

eck Reed Riden LLP is among the leading authorities in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law, and our experience handling these matters is backed by our extensive employment law and business litigation experience. Our hand-picked team combines attorneys with complementary expertise and practical experience.

The Wall Street Journal featured Beck Reed Riden LLP’s noncompete agreement experience. In 2016, the White House issued a report entitled, “Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses,” relying in part on Beck Reed Riden LLP’s research and analysis, including its 50 State Noncompete Survey.

Russell Beck’s work in this area is well recognized, and includes:

  • Over twenty four years of working on trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition matters
  • Assisting the Obama White House as part of a small working group to develop President Obama’s Noncompete Call to Action
  • Authoring the book Negotiating, Drafting, and Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements and Related Restrictive Covenants (5th ed., MCLE, Inc. 2015), used by other lawyers to help them with their noncompete matters
  • Drafting and advising on legislation for the Massachusetts Legislature to define, codify, and improve noncompetition law
  • Teaching Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants at Boston University School of Law
  • Founding and administrating the award-winning blog, Fair Competition Law
  • Establishing and administrating the Noncompete Lawyers and Trade Secret Protection groups on LinkedIn, with over 1,600 members around the world
  • Founded and chaired the Trade Secret / Noncompete Practice for an AmLaw 100 firm

In addition, Russell was honored for his work in this area of law in the 2019 Chambers USA Guide, which stated that Russell Beck is a “terrific” attorney, who “is an excellent choice of counsel regarding noncompete agreements and the resolution of restrictive covenant disputes.” Chambers noted that Russell “basically wrote the new Massachusetts statute on noncompetes” and that “he’s an expert in employee mobility and nonrestrictive covenants.”

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

 

Landmark SCOTUS Decision Opens Door to “Immoral or Scandalous” Trademarks

FUCT founder, Erik Brunetti. Photo by Alessandro Barthlow.

Two years ago, in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Lanham Act’s disparagement clause (prohibiting the registration of disparaging trademarks)  as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another landmark ruling in Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. ____ (2019), this time striking down the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the registration of “immoral . . . or scandalous” trademarks. Citing its holding in Tam, the Court found that the “immoral or scandalous” bar similarly discriminates based on viewpoint and therefore runs afoul of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.

The Lanham Act’s “Immoral or Scandalous” Bar

Prior to Brunetti, the Lanham Act prohibited the registration of trademarks that “[c]onsist[] of or comprise[] immoral . . . or scandalous matter[.]” 15 U.S.C. §1052(a).

To determine whether a mark violated the provision, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would ask whether a “substantial composite of the general public” would find the mark “shocking to the sense of truth, decency, or propriety”; “giving offense to the conscience or moral feelings”; “calling out for condemnation”; “disgraceful”; “offensive”; “disreputable”; or “vulgar.”

The Case

Erik Brunetti founded a clothing line that uses the trademark “FUCT.” According to Brunetti, FUCT is pronounced by spelling out its four letters in order, “F-U-C-T.” However, as the Court observed, “you might read it differently and, if so, you would hardly be alone.”

Brunetti’s application for trademark registration failed at the USPTO and again on review by the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). On review, the TTAB found that the mark was “highly offensive,” “vulgar,” and had “decidedly negative sexual connotations.”

Among other things, the TTAB considered how Brunetti used the mark and found that his website and products contained imagery near the mark of “extreme nihilism” and “antisocial” behavior. The TTAB concluded: “Whether one considers [the mark] as a sexual term, or finds that [Brunetti] has used [the mark] in the context of extreme misogyny, nihilism or violence, we have no question but that [the term is] extremely offensive.”

Brunetti challenged the Lanham Act provision in court and the Federal Circuit found that the provision violated the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert.

Supreme Court Strikes Down the “Immoral or Scandalous” Bar

In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 6-3.

The Court first discussed its holdings in Tam, whereby it struck down a neighboring provision of the Lanham Act that prohibited the registration of “disparaging” trademarks. Although, in Tam, the Court had divided evenly between two opinions and could not agree on a specific framework for deciding the case, the justices had agreed on a set of key principles. “First, if a trademark registration bar is viewpoint-based, it is unconstitutional. . . . And second, the disparagement bar was viewpoint-based.”  Accordingly, “[v]iewpoint discrimination doomed the disparagement bar.”

Applying the holdings in Tam, the Brunetti Court reasoned that, if the “immoral or scandalous” bar discriminated on the basis of viewpoint, it would run afoul of the First Amendment. The critical question thus became: was the “immoral or scandalous” bar viewpoint-based or viewpoint-neutral?

The Court quickly found that the “immoral or scandalous” bar was impermissibly viewpoint-based. The Court stated:

So the Lanham Act allows registration of marks when their messages accord with, but not when their messages defy, society’s sense of decency or propriety. Put the pair of overlapping terms together and the statute, on its face, distinguishes between two opposed sets of ideas: those aligned with conventional moral standards and those hostile to them; those inducing societal nods of approval and those provoking offense and condemnation. The statute favors the former, and disfavors the latter. “Love rules”? “Always be good”? Registration follows. “Hate rules”? “Always be cruel”? Not according to the Lanham Act’s “immoral or scandalous” bar.

Indeed, as the Court observed, the USPTO had registered trademarks such as D.A.R.E. TO RESIST DRUGS AND VIOLENCE and SAY NO TO DRUGS—REALITY IS THE BEST TRIP IN LIFE while denying registration for such marks as BONG HITS 4 JESUS and YOU CAN’T SPELL HEALTHCARE WITHOUT THC.

The government urged the Court to accept a narrow construction of the statute that would purport to remove the viewpoint bias by limiting the bar to marks that are immoral or scandalous because of their “mode” of expression, rather than the viewpoints they express. In other words, the government sought to limit the “immoral or scandalous” bar to prohibit the registration of vulgar, lewd, and sexually explicit or profane marks. The Court rejected the government’s proposal to read the statute narrowly as inconsistent with the language of the statute.

The Court also rejected the government’s argument that the Court should uphold the statute against a facial attack on the basis that the unconstitutional applications were insubstantial compared to the statute’s legitimate applications. The Court found that this specific defense had never been applied to a viewpoint-discriminatory law and, in any case, the “immoral or scandalous” bar was substantially overbroad.  

In closing, the Court observed that:  

There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all. It therefore violates the First Amendment.

Justice Alito concurred, calling viewpoint discrimination a “poison to a free society” and noting that “[a]t a time when free speech is under attack, it is especially important for this Court to remain firm on the principle that the First Amendment does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination.”  

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer each filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Breyer, concurred in part and dissented in part.

Related Reading: Matal v. Tam: SCOTUS Brings a New Slant to Disparaging Trademarks

***

Hannah T. Joseph, the author of this article, is an attorney with the firm’s litigation group, focusing her practice on the growing areas of trade secrets law, restrictive covenants, employee mobility, and unfair competition. Hannah’s work in intellectual property has been recognized at the American Intellectual Property Law Association and the Boston Bar Association, among others.

eck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our hand-picked team of lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and labor and employment, and are recognized as a leading authority in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

Ars Technica quotes Russell Beck on the New Massachusetts Noncompete Law

Russell Beck was quoted by Ars Technica in a recent article, “REGIONAL ADVANTAGE — Massachusetts gives workers new protections against noncompete clauses,” that discusses the new Massachusetts noncompete law.

Addressing why Massachusetts rejected California’s approach of banning noncompetes, Russell is quoted as follows:

“The legislature made the determination that noncompetes do serve legitimate business purposes and shouldn’t be prohibited,” said Russell Beck, an attorney who helped draft the legislation.

“California has by far the most trade secrets litigation,” Beck pointed out to me. “The inference I draw from that is that companies need to protect their information one way or another; if they can’t use noncompetes, they’re going to use trade secrets law.”

The article was published on August 22, 2018.

For the past nine years, Russell Beck has been advising various members of the Massachusetts Legislature (primarily Senator Will Brownsberger and Representative Lori Ehrlich) and he was the lead drafter of their bills. Most of the language in the current noncompete law is language that Russell Beck drafted or is based on language that he drafted, though a number of the provisions (such as garden leave) were added by others or significantly modified by others.

For up-to-the-minute analysis of legal issues concerning non-compete agreements in Massachusetts and across the United States, read Russell Beck’s blog, Fair Competition Law.

eck Reed Riden LLP is among the leading authorities in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law, and our experience handling these matters is backed by our extensive employment law and business litigation experience. Our hand-picked team combines attorneys with complementary expertise and practical experience.

The Wall Street Journal featured Beck Reed Riden LLP’s noncompete agreement experience. In 2016, the White House issued a report entitled, “Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses,” relying in part on Beck Reed Riden LLP’s research and analysis, including its 50 State Noncompete Survey.

Russell Beck’s work in this area is well recognized; it includes:

  • Over twenty two years of working on trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition matters
  • Assisting the Obama White House as part of a small working group to develop President Obama’s Noncompete Call to Action
  • Authoring the book Negotiating, Drafting, and Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements and Related Restrictive Covenants (5th ed., MCLE, Inc. 2015), used by other lawyers to help them with their noncompete cases
  • Drafting and advising on legislation for the Massachusetts Legislature to define, codify, and improve noncompetition law
  • Teaching Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants at Boston University School of Law
  • Founding and administrating the award-winning blog, Fair Competition Law
  • Establishing and administrating the Noncompete Lawyers and Trade Secret Protection groups on LinkedIn, with over 1,600 members around the world
  • Founded and chaired the Trade Secret / Noncompete Practice for an AmLaw 100 firm

In addition, Russell was honored for his work in this area of law in the 2017 Chambers USA Guide, which stated, “‘Excellent attorney‘ Russell Beck of Beck Reed Riden LLP is a ‘terrific noncompete specialist,’ according to industry commentators. He is a skilled litigator with experience representing clients ranging from individuals to large corporations at both trial and appellate levels.”

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and labor and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

Russell Beck in Ars Technica

Russell Beck was quoted by Ars Technica in a recent article about the so-called trade secrets case of the century: Waymo v. Uber.

The article, “Quest to dominate self-driving cars is at the heart of Waymo v. Uber trial,” focuses on the background to the case and the upcoming trial.

Russell is quoted in the article as follows:

“Waymo will need to prove that Levandowski stole its information, that Uber knew it, and that Uber incorporated [the information] into its self-driving car technology,” Russell Beck, a veteran trade secrets lawyer, told Ars. He also noted that usually such lawsuits settle rather than go to trial.

“Uber will need to show that, even if there was some wrongful conduct, it is not using Waymo’s technology and, therefore, no harm, no foul.”

The article was published on February 4, 2018.

For up-to-the-minute analysis of legal issues concerning noncompete agreements in Massachusetts and across the United States, read Russell Beck’s blog, Fair Competition Law.

eck Reed Riden LLP is among the leading authorities in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law, and our experience handling these matters is backed by our extensive employment law and business litigation experience. Our hand-picked team combines attorneys with complementary expertise and practical experience.

The Wall Street Journal featured Beck Reed Riden LLP’s noncompete agreement experience. In 2016, the White House issued a report entitled, “Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses,” relying in part on Beck Reed Riden LLP’s research and analysis, including its 50 State Noncompete Survey.

Russell Beck’s work in this area is well recognized; it includes:

  • Over twenty two years of working on trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition matters
  • Assisting the Obama White House as part of a small working group to develop President Obama’s Noncompete Call to Action
  • Authoring the book Negotiating, Drafting, and Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements and Related Restrictive Covenants (5th ed., MCLE, Inc. 2015), used by other lawyers to help them with their noncompete cases
  • Drafting and advising on legislation for the Massachusetts Legislature to define, codify, and improve noncompetition law
  • Teaching Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants at Boston University School of Law
  • Founding and administrating the award-winning blog, Fair Competition Law
  • Establishing and administrating the Noncompete Lawyers and Trade Secret Protection groups on LinkedIn, with over 1,600 members around the world
  • Founded and chaired the Trade Secret / Noncompete Practice for an AmLaw 100 firm

In addition, Russell was honored for his work in this area of law in the 2017 Chambers USA Guide, which stated, “‘Excellent attorney‘ Russell Beck of Beck Reed Riden LLP is a ‘terrific noncompete specialist,’ according to industry commentators. He is a skilled litigator with experience representing clients ranging from individuals to large corporations at both trial and appellate levels.”

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and labor and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

Russell Beck Moderated Trade Secrets Panel at BBA’s IP Year in Review

Russell Beck moderated the trade secrets panel at the Boston Bar Association’s 18th Annual Intellectual Property Year in Review on January 25, 2018.

The panel consisted of: Hon. Mitchell H. Kaplan (Superior Court, Business Litigation Session); Kati O’Brien (Staples, Inc.); C. Max Perlman (Hirsch Roberts Weinstein LLP); and Stacey Schmidt (Fidelity Investments).

Among other things, the panel updated the legal community on the Defend Trade Secret Act ‘s first 18 months and its effects on companies, courts, and litigation strategy, as well as developments at the state and national level concerning noncompetes and other restrictive covenants.

The 18th Annual IP Year in Review was sponsored by the BBA’s Intellectual Property Section.

For up-to-the-minute analysis of legal issues concerning noncompete agreements in Massachusetts and across the United States, read Russell Beck’s blog, Fair Competition Law.

eck Reed Riden LLP is among the leading authorities in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law, and our experience handling these matters is backed by our extensive employment law and business litigation experience. Our hand-picked team combines attorneys with complementary expertise and practical experience.

The Wall Street Journal featured Beck Reed Riden LLP’s noncompete agreement experience. In 2016, the White House issued a report entitled, “Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses,” relying in part on Beck Reed Riden LLP’s research and analysis, including its 50 State Noncompete Survey.

Russell Beck’s work in this area is well recognized; it includes:

  • Over twenty two years of working on trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition matters
  • Assisting the Obama White House as part of a small working group to develop President Obama’s Noncompete Call to Action
  • Authoring the book Negotiating, Drafting, and Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements and Related Restrictive Covenants (5th ed., MCLE, Inc. 2015), used by other lawyers to help them with their noncompete cases
  • Drafting and advising on legislation for the Massachusetts Legislature to define, codify, and improve noncompetition law
  • Teaching Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants at Boston University School of Law
  • Founding and administrating the award-winning blog, Fair Competition Law
  • Establishing and administrating the Noncompete Lawyers and Trade Secret Protection groups on LinkedIn, with over 1,600 members around the world
  • Founded and chaired the Trade Secret / Noncompete Practice for an AmLaw 100 firm

In addition, Russell was honored for his work in this area of law in the 2017 Chambers USA Guide, which stated, “‘Excellent attorney‘ Russell Beck of Beck Reed Riden LLP is a ‘terrific noncompete specialist,’ according to industry commentators. He is a skilled litigator with experience representing clients ranging from individuals to large corporations at both trial and appellate levels.”

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and labor and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

Russell Beck Invited to Speak at the Inaugural Sedona Conference on Trade Secrets

The Sedona Conference held its Inaugural Conference on Developing Best Practices for Trade Secrets Issues on December 7 and 8 in Scottsdale, Arizona.

The Sedona Conference is “a PowerPoint-free, marketing-free assembly of thought leaders in trade secrets law. . . .  Attendance is by invitation only to ensure a proper balance of participants, and is limited in size to ensure that we have an intimate environment for meaningful dialogue.”

Russell Beck was invited to be a panelist (on the panel entitled, “Investigating the Facts”) and a participant in the program overall.

The program resulted in the establishment of a working group to develop best practices for the protection of trade secrets. Russell will be participating in that effort.

For up-to-the-minute analysis of legal issues concerning noncompete agreements in Massachusetts and across the United States, read Russell Beck’s blog, Fair Competition Law.

eck Reed Riden LLP is among the leading authorities in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law, and our experience handling these matters is backed by our extensive employment law and business litigation experience. Our hand-picked team combines attorneys with complementary expertise and practical experience.

The Wall Street Journal featured Beck Reed Riden LLP’s noncompete agreement experience. In 2016, the White House issued a report entitled, “Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses,” relying in part on Beck Reed Riden LLP’s research and analysis, including its 50 State Noncompete Survey.

Russell Beck’s work in this area is well recognized; it includes:

  • Over twenty two years of working on trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition matters

  • Assisting the Obama White House through a small working group to develop President Obama’s Noncompete Call to Action
  • Authoring the book Negotiating, Drafting, and Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements and Related Restrictive Covenants (5th ed., MCLE, Inc. 2015), used by other lawyers to help them with their noncompete cases

  • Drafting and advising on legislation for the Massachusetts Legislature to define, codify, and improve noncompetition law

  • Teaching Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants at Boston University School of Law

  • Founding and administrating the award-winning blog, Fair Competition Law

  • Establishing and administrating the Noncompete Lawyers and Trade Secret Protection groups on LinkedIn, with over 750 members around the world

  • Founded and chaired the Trade Secret / Noncompete Practice for an AmLaw 100 firm

In addition, Russell was honored for his work in this area of law in the 2017 Chambers USA Guide, which stated, “‘Excellent attorney‘ Russell Beck of Beck Reed Riden LLP is a ‘terrific noncompete specialist,’ according to industry commentators. He is a skilled litigator with experience representing clients ranging from individuals to large corporations at both trial and appellate levels.”

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and labor and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

BBC World Service Features Interview with Russell Beck on Noncompetes

The British Broadcasting Company recently featured Russell Beck as an expert for a BBC World Service broadcast on noncompete agreements in the United States. The story is entitled, “American Jobs: The Ties that Bind.”

The broadcast opens with Russell Beck providing a summary of how non-compete agreements work, and their widespread use.

The balance of the story explores the impacts of noncompetition agreements on companies and individuals through interviews with people affected by noncompetes, companies that use them, and a professor, Matt Marx, who studies their impacts on the economy.

The BBC describes the story as follows:

Why are so many US workers forced into job contracts that make it hard for them to leave? Employers routinely ask new recruits to agree to “non-compete” clauses when they start work. This means they might be unable to work for a competitor company, or to set up on their own. Is this a good way to protect intellectual property or an unnecessary infringement of workers’ rights? Claire Bolderson goes to Massachusetts to explore the personal and economic impact of the legislation and asks if reform might, finally, be a possibility.

The broadcast, available here, was produced by BBC Senior Producer Rosamund Jones and reported by BBC reporter Claire Bolderson.

For up-to-the-minute analysis of legal issues concerning noncompete agreements in Massachusetts and across the United States, read Russell Beck’s blog, Fair Competition Law.

eck Reed Riden LLP is among the leading authorities in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law, and our experience handling these matters is backed by our extensive employment law and business litigation experience. Our hand-picked team combines attorneys with complementary expertise and practical experience.

The Wall Street Journal featured Beck Reed Riden LLP’s noncompete agreement experience. In 2016, the White House issued a report entitled, “Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses,” relying in part on Beck Reed Riden LLP’s research and analysis, including its 50 State Noncompete Survey.

Russell Beck’s work in this area is well recognized, and includes:

  • Over twenty five years of working on trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition matters
  • Assisting the Obama White House as part of a small working group to develop President Obama’s Noncompete Call to Action
  • Authoring the book Negotiating, Drafting, and Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements and Related Restrictive Covenants (5th ed., MCLE, Inc. 2015), used by other lawyers to help them with their noncompete matters
  • Authoring the book Trade Secrets Law for the Massachusetts Practitioner (1st ed. MCLE 2019), covering trade secrets nationally, with a focus on Massachusetts law
  • Drafting and advising on legislation for the Massachusetts Legislature to define, codify, and improve noncompetition law
  • Teaching Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants at Boston University School of Law
  • Founding and administrating the award-winning blog, Fair Competition Law
  • Establishing and administrating the Noncompete Lawyers and Trade Secret Protection groups on LinkedIn, with over 1,600 members around the world
  • Founded and chaired the Trade Secret / Noncompete Practice for an AmLaw 100 firm

In addition, Russell was honored for his work in this area of law in the 2019 Chambers USA Guide, which stated that Russell Beck is a “terrific” attorney, who “is an excellent choice of counsel regarding noncompete agreements and the resolution of restrictive covenant disputes.” Chambers noted that Russell “basically wrote the new Massachusetts statute on noncompetes” and that “he’s an expert in employee mobility and nonrestrictive covenants.”

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

1 2