Media & Insights
September 3, 2019
Related Attorneys
Quidel Corp. v. Superior Court (Beckman Coulter, Inc.)
(Aug. 29, 2019, D075217) __ Cal.App.5th __
Business & Professions Code section 16600 voids contracts that restrain “anyone” from “engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business.” In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, the California Supreme Court held that section 16600 creates a rule of per se invalidity that bars postterm employee noncompetition agreements.
In this case, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court that had relied on Edwards in applying a rule of per se invalidity to exclusivity provisions in contracts between businesses. The Court of Appeal distinguished Edwards as limited to postterm employment agreements. The court held that exclusivity provisions between businesses are valid so long as they do not negatively affect the public interest, are designed to protect the parties in their dealings, and do not attempt to establish a monopoly.
Horvitz & Levy represented Quidel Corporation on its successful writ petition challenging the trial court’s order granting summary adjudication.
(Aug. 29, 2019, D075217) __ Cal.App.5th __
Business & Professions Code section 16600 voids contracts that restrain “anyone” from “engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business.” In Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, the California Supreme Court held that section 16600 creates a rule of per se invalidity that bars postterm employee noncompetition agreements.
In this case, the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court that had relied on Edwards in applying a rule of per se invalidity to exclusivity provisions in contracts between businesses. The Court of Appeal distinguished Edwards as limited to postterm employment agreements. The court held that exclusivity provisions between businesses are valid so long as they do not negatively affect the public interest, are designed to protect the parties in their dealings, and do not attempt to establish a monopoly.
Horvitz & Levy represented Quidel Corporation on its successful writ petition challenging the trial court’s order granting summary adjudication.
