Non-Compete and Non-Disclosure Agreement Litigation

Ohio law and reasonable restraints

Ohio non-compete agreements are evaluated for reasonableness under Raimonde v. Van Vlerah. Courts may consider the employer’s legitimate business interests, the restraint’s geographic and temporal scope, the employee’s hardship, and the effect on the public interest. Recent developments, including Kross Acquisition Co. v. Groundworks Ohio, LLC (2024), continue to shape how restrictive covenants are assessed and enforced.

Non-disclosure agreements and trade secrets

A non-disclosure agreement can help protect customer data, pricing, processes, source materials, and other confidential information. Trade-secret claims may also arise under the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act, R.C. 1333.61 et seq. We examine what information was protected, the steps taken to keep it confidential, who had access, and how it was used or disclosed.

Defenses to overreaching covenants

A former employee or business may have defenses when a covenant is being used to prevent ordinary competition rather than to protect a legitimate interest. We assess the agreement and the surrounding facts before advising on compliance, negotiation, or litigation.

• Lack of consideration for the restriction
• A prior breach by the employer or other party
• Overbroad limits on time, geography, or restricted activity
• A restraint that reaches beyond a legitimate business interest
• Hardship and public-interest concerns

Drafting, enforcement, and defense

The best time to test a restrictive covenant is before it is needed. We help businesses draft provisions that are tied to legitimate interests and understandable to the people who must follow them. When a dispute arises, we can evaluate demand letters, injunction strategies, settlement options, and the evidence needed to enforce or defend the agreement.

Non-compete and confidentiality FAQs

Our Non-Compete and Confidentiality Disputes FAQ explains Ohio enforceability, trade secrets, remedies, evidence, and deadlines.