Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY: Taiwanese executive pleads guilty to role in color display tube price fixing conspiracy
    • ADVERTISING NEWS: Jetstar and Virgin Australia found to have engaged in “drip pricing”
    • ADVERTISING NEWS: Retired NFL players take settlement challenge to High Court
    • ADVERTISING—S.D. Ohio: Tito’s ‘Handmade’ Vodka misrepresentation claims partially dropped
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Are pharmacy benefit managers writing competition out of the script?
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Qualcomm faces antitrust investigation in South Korea
    • ANTITRUST—6th Cir.: Non-disclosure restrictions on employee did not form unenforceable non-compete agreement
    • ANTITRUST—S.D.N.Y.: Consent decree resolving challenge to New York tour bus JV approved
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Officials: FTC, FCC MOU Formalizes Long History of Cooperation
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—C.D. Cal.: Safeguard distributor plausibly alleges breach of agreement
    • LAW FIRM NEWS: Arnold & Porter welcomes consumer protection attorney
    • LAW FIRM NEWS: Greenberg Traurig, McDermott Will & Emery announce antitrust hires
    • RICO NEWS: Trial law firm files counterclaims against gasket maker in asbestos suit
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—11th Cir.: Attorney fees properly granted in Chinese restaurant deceptive practices dispute
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—N.D. Ala.: Consumer’s fraud claims against Behr, Home Depot fail
    • SUPREME COURT DOCKET: Recent decisions, cases, and petitions pending High Court review
    • WORTH NOTING—Other Antitrust and Trade Regulation developments
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—6th Cir.: Non-disclosure restrictions on employee did not form unenforceable non-compete agreement, (Nov 18, 2015)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Baker & McKenzie | Nixon Peabody
    Organizations Mentioned:Nixon Peabody, LLP | Orthofix, Inc.

    By Jeffrey May, J.D.

    A non-disclosure agreement in an employment contract between a medical device maker and a former employee was not an unenforceable non-compete agreement under Texas law, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has decided in a not-for-publication opi ...

    By Jeffrey May, J.D.

    A non-disclosure agreement in an employment contract between a medical device maker and a former employee was not an unenforceable non-compete agreement under Texas law, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has decided in a not-for-publication opinion. The district court erroneously concluded that the non-disclosure provision formed a “lifetime non-compete clause” in violation of Texas law because it prohibited the former employee from using his general skills and knowledge without geographic or durational limits (Orthofix, Inc. v. Hunter, November 17, 2015, Merritt, G.).

    Under the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act, employers’ agreements prohibiting employees from using general knowledge, skill, and experience acquired in their former employment are generally prohibited if they do not contain geographic and durational limitations. Because the disputed non-disclosure provision protected the device maker’s confidential information, and not the former employee’s general knowledge, the provision was not a non-compete agreement under Texas law that was unenforceable for lack of geographic and durational limits.

    The appellate court explained that the former employee breached the non-disclosure provision of his contract when he joined a competing medical device maker and drew upon his knowledge of his former customers’ habits, schedules, and contact information in introducing the competitor's representatives to these customers. Thus, judgment in favor of the former employee on the medical device maker’s breach of contract claim was reversed. Because Orthofix demonstrated both the existence and breach of a valid contract under Texas law, the case was remanded to the district court for the calculation of damages.

    This is Case No. 15-3216.

    Attorneys: Michael J. Philippi (Nixon Peabody) for Eric W. Hunter. Michael A. Pollard (Baker & McKenzie) for Orthofix, Inc.

    Companies: Orthofix, Inc.

    Cases: Antitrust KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use