Christopher H. Lindstrom

Christopher H. Lindstrom

Christopher H. Lindstrom is a partner in the Litigation Department and a member of the Labor, Employment and Benefits practice group. An experienced litigator, Chris’ practice includes prosecuting and defending against breaches of non-competition and non-disclosure agreements as well as trade secret misappropriation. He represents clients in all facets of enforcing their restrictive covenants, including advising on nationwide non-compete strategies, enforcing restrictions short of litigation, and filing complaints seeking injunctive relief and damages. Read more.

Subscribe to all posts by Christopher H. Lindstrom

Here We Go Again: Massachusetts Non-Compete Legislation Back in Play

As we previously reported, the Massachusetts House and Senate passed contrasting versions of non-compete reform bills in 2016 but were unable to come to an agreement by the end of the legislative session. Efforts began anew last month as Senator William Brownsberger and Representative Lori Ehrlich filed a new non-compete bill on January 20: An … Continue Reading

White House Issues State Call to Action on Non-Compete Reform

This week, the Obama Administration continued its ongoing efforts to curb what it considers to be the “gross overuse” of non-compete agreements. In a “State Call to Action,” the White House encourages legislatures to adopt certain recommendations for non-compete reform. Tuesday’s announcement follows the Obama Administration’s May 2016 report, “Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, … Continue Reading

Recent Decisions Highlight Courts’ Reluctance to Modify Overbroad Non-Compete Provisions

In what may be a trend, several courts around the country this year have embraced strict interpretations of non-compete agreements, refusing to blue pencil or equitably reform overbroad or unreasonable clauses in non-compete agreements. Traditionally, courts have exercised the doctrine of equitable reformation to re-write provisions to render them reasonable, or at the very least, … Continue Reading

Complications Employers Face When Including Confidentiality Provisions in Employee Agreements

Our firm’s Executive Comp Exchange blog recently added a post that is useful to employers who utilize confidentiality provisions in any of their employment documents. The blog post addresses the complications of confidentiality provisions of employee agreements and perceived constraints on the employee’s ability to report relevant information or conduct to certain government agencies. The … Continue Reading

Massachusetts Non-Compete Reform: Maybe Next Year

Once again, the Massachusetts legislature took on non-compete reform, and once again, came up empty-handed. On July 31, 2016, the legislature adjourned without reaching a compromise to alter the state’s non-compete landscape. Earlier this summer, both the House and the Senate passed contrasting versions of non-compete reform bills, but ultimately could not come to agreement … Continue Reading

Mid-Year Review: New Non-Compete Legislation in 2016

In the first half of 2016, we have already seen significant changes to a number of state non-compete laws. In this post, we provide a compilation of recently enacted legislation in Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Oregon, and Utah, as well as several important developments at the federal level. Against this nationwide backdrop, there is non-compete legislation … Continue Reading

White House Weighs in on Ongoing Non-Compete Battle

As states continue to struggle with the pros and cons of non-competes, the White House has recently weighed in, siding largely with critics of non-competes.  In Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses, the Obama Administration draws on a recent report from the U.S. Treasury Office of Economic Policy to provide … Continue Reading

The Latest Massachusetts Non-Compete Bill Contains Some Surprises

Earlier this week, the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development released proposed amendments to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which would include the creation of the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act. The legislation, if enacted, would significantly alter the non-compete landscape, rendering unenforceable or practically unworkable most Massachusetts employers’ non-competition agreements. Here are some of … Continue Reading

Utah and Idaho Take Contrasting Approaches to Non-Compete Reform

In the last few weeks, Utah and Idaho have each passed bills changing the landscape of non-compete enforceability in strikingly different ways. Utah’s law places further limitations on the use of non-competes. In contrast, the Idaho bill (expected to be signed by the governor shortly) permits greater enforceability of non-competes. Utah Imposes New Restrictions on … Continue Reading

The House Speaker Proposes New Non-Compete Legislation in Massachusetts

This morning, House Speaker Robert DeLeo announced at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast that the House will be releasing a bill this session that imposes some limitations on non-competes. Although the language of the proposed bill is not yet available, Speaker DeLeo described two key elements: Time Limit: The proposed bill would limit … Continue Reading

Massachusetts Courts Continue to Reject Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine

Judge Janet L. Sanders of the Superior Court’s Business Litigation Session has continued the trend of Massachusetts courts refusing to recognize the inevitable disclosure doctrine. In The Gillette Company v. Craig Provost et al, Civ. Action No. 15-0149 (Mass. Sup. Dec. 22, 2015), Gillette moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent its former counsel and … Continue Reading

Massachusetts Federal Court Reaffirms That Continued Employment Constitutes Sufficient Consideration for Non-Compete

In American Well Corporation v. Obourn, Civil No. 15-12265-LTS, 2015 WL 7737328 (D. Mass. Dec. 1, 2015), Judge Sorokin of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts upheld a non-compete entered into seven months after the employee’s start date. The Court explained that as to whether continued employment constitutes sufficient consideration for a … Continue Reading

They’re Not Dead Yet: Massachusetts Courts Continue to Enforce Non-Competes and Enjoin Defendants in the Right Circumstances

In Pegasystems Inc. v. Appian Corp., Judge Mitchell Kaplan of the Massachusetts Business Litigation Session enjoined a sales employee from working for a competitor for three months. This recent opinion highlights some common issues in Massachusetts non-compete law and illustrates judges’ broad discretion to fashion relief.… Continue Reading

Can We Still Be Friends? The Uncertain Definition of Non-Solicitation in the Digital Age

Although last year’s legislative efforts to ban—or limit further—non-competes in Massachusetts failed, proponents have vowed to revive the issue again in 2015-2016. Excluded from those proposed measures, however, has always been any restriction on employers’ use of customer non-solicitation clauses. Should the Legislature ever pass restrictions on non-competes, employers that have not already done so … Continue Reading

State-Specific Quirks May Thwart Unwary Employers

Massachusetts employers and employees have enough to contend with trying to keep abreast of the judicial and legislative fits and starts of non-compete reform within the state, let alone developments in other states. It is important to remember that non-compete law varies widely from state to state, and these variations may come into play if … Continue Reading
LexBlog