Employment – Noncompete – Preliminary injunction

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff alleging that a former employee violated the noncompetition provisions of his employment contract has requested a preliminary injunction, that request should be granted because the nationwide scope of the restrictions placed on the defendant is reasonable.

“Plaintiff Foundation Medicine, Inc. (FMI) filed this breach of contract action against a former employee, Cameron Kittle, accusing him of violating the noncompetition provisions of his contract with FMI when he accepted an offer to join competitor Foresight Diagnostics (Foresight) as its chief (and solo) lifecycle management officer. …

“FMI … has offered a copy of the employment contract signed by Kittle (the authenticity of which is unchallenged) that expressly prohibits him from working for a competitor in the same or similar position that he held at FMI for one year post-employment. And while Kittle questions the fairness of the restrictions on his post-employment opportunities, his arguments have no legal standing. The restriction serves to protect FMI’s confidential information, a purpose that has been time-honored by courts as a legitimate business interest. … And while the scope of the restrictions placed on Kittle by his noncompete agreement is admittedly geographically broad, a nationwide (or even worldwide) ‘restriction is not necessarily unreasonable per se.’ … FMI markets its products nationwide to customers — a matter that is not contested — so the nationwide scope of the restrictions placed on Kittle is reasonable. …

“To the extent Kittle attempts to place his role at Foresight outside of the scope of his non-compete agreement (because the work he performs at Foresight is substantively different from the work that he performed for FMI), he again fails to convince the court. …

“FMI has met its burden of establishing that it is likely to suffer an injury that cannot be compensated by money damages if Kittle continues to work for Foresight. …

“It is no answer to say that the prospect of harm is, at least for the moment, speculative. FMI has plans to launch its competing product imminently, and the fact that it ‘cannot [now] point to direct evidence of misuse of its confidential information is not a bar to enforcing the noncompetition covenant.’ … Courts often find ‘irreparable harm … triggered where the defendant has likely violated his noncompetition agreement’ precisely because it is difficult to detect or prove when and if, and to what degree, confidential information has been misused. …”

Foundation Medicine, Inc. v. Kittle (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-093-25) (10 pages) (Stearns, J.) (Civil Action No. 25-10298-RGS) (Feb. 20, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.