CLOSEClose The Recorder Menu

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Jonathan A. Patchen, left, and Cheryl A. Cauley, right, of Baker Botts.

Employee noncompete agreements are generally invalid under California Business & Professions Code §16600, which says that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” Courts have periodically created exceptions to §16600’s ban on anticompetitive covenants—from the so-called “trade secret exception” to, under Techno Lite v. Emcod, a “while employed” exception. 44 Cal. App. 5th 462 (2020); Dowell v. Biosense Webster, 179 Cal. App. 4th 564 (2009). But such exceptions violate the statute’s plain text and policy, and the California Supreme Court’s direction that §16600 “should not be diluted by judicial fiat.” Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, 44 Cal. 4th 947, 949 (2008). Just as courts have recognized that the “trade secret exception” does not square with Edwards, the same should be true for Techno Lite’s “while employed” exception.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Law Firms Mentioned


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.