6th Circuit upholds noncompete based on preliminary injunction’s ‘flexible language’

A recent decision from the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings apply to all Michigan employers) upholding a noncompete agreement with a former employee highlights the need for legal counsel to craft preliminary injunction language that reflects the unique facts of the employee and their new position with the competitor.

Facts

In 2013 and again in 2022, Jafar Abbas entered into noncompete, nonsolicitation, and confidentiality agreements with Stryker Employment Company, LLC, a spinal implant company. Under the Stryker agreement, he was prohibited from rendering services for “any Conflicting Organization in which the services [he] may provide could enhance the use or marketability of a Conflicting Product or Service by application of Confidential Information which [he] had access to during [his] employment” for one year after leaving Stryker.

The agreement defines a “Conflicting Organization” as “any person or organization which is engaged in or about to become engaged in research on, consulting regarding, or development, production, marketing, or selling of a Conflicting Product or Service.”