Comprehensive Technologies International v. Software Artisans, Inc.
3 F.3d 730 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Virginia law, a covenant not to compete is enforceable if it is reasonable from the standpoints of the employer, the employee, and public policy. A nationwide geographic restriction is reasonable if the employer has a national market for its products and the functional restrictions are narrowly tailored to protect legitimate business interests, such as confidential information known by a high-level employee.
Facts:
- Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. (CTI), a defense contractor, decided to diversify into Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) software.
- CTI hired Dean Hawkes to lead its new Software Products Group, which developed two programs: "Claims Express," a successful electronic medical billing system, and "EDI Link," an unfinished generic forms program.
- As a high-level employee, Hawkes had access to CTI's confidential and proprietary information regarding its software products, development, and customers.
- In February 1991, Hawkes and several other key employees left CTI.
- Upon his departure, Hawkes signed a Termination Agreement, receiving over $70,000 in exchange for agreeing not to compete with CTI's specific software business for one year "within the United States."
- The agreement narrowly defined the "business of CTI" as the design, development, marketing, and sales of PC-based software with the same functionality and methodology as Claims Express and EDI Link.
- In April 1991, Hawkes and the other former CTI employees incorporated Software Artisans, Inc. (SA).
- By July 1991, SA began marketing "Transend," a software program designed to prepare forms for EDI transmission, similar to CTI's products.
Procedural Posture:
- Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. (CTI) filed suit against its former employees and their new company, Software Artisans, Inc. (SA), in federal district court.
- CTI's complaint alleged claims for copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of Dean Hawkes's covenant not to compete.
- Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the Defendants on all counts.
- The district court specifically held that Hawkes's covenant not to compete was unenforceable because it was geographically overbroad and the employment restrictions were too broad.
- CTI, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a covenant not to compete that prohibits a former high-level employee from engaging in any capacity with a competitor anywhere in the United States for one year enforceable under Virginia law, when the employer has a national market for its products and the restriction is limited to a narrow, specific type of software business?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, J.
Yes, the covenant not to compete is enforceable because it is reasonable under Virginia's three-part test. First, the restraint is no greater than necessary to protect CTI's legitimate business interests; the nationwide scope is justified by CTI's national market, customer base, and competition, and the broad functional restriction is justified because Hawkes's access to confidential information made him a 'formidable competitor.' Second, the restraint is not unduly harsh to Hawkes, as it is narrowly limited to a specific type of software, leaving him broad employability in other areas of the software industry. Third, the covenant is not unreasonable from the standpoint of public policy. Because all three parts of the test are met, the covenant must be enforced.
Dissenting - Murnaghan, J.
No, the covenant not to compete is unenforceable because its nationwide geographic scope is overbroad. Virginia law disfavors restraints on trade and requires that they be strictly construed against the employer. The covenant's restriction to the entire United States is greater than necessary to protect CTI's business interests, as the evidence showed CTI had business contacts in only 31 states, not all 50. The Supreme Court of Virginia has never approved a non-compete clause with such a broad geographic limitation, instead requiring restrictions to be confined to a well-defined territory where the employer actually operates.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of Virginia's reasonableness test for non-compete covenants in the context of a modern, national market. The court established that a nationwide geographic scope, traditionally viewed with suspicion, can be deemed reasonable if supported by evidence of a national customer base and competitive landscape. It also reinforces that broad functional restrictions (e.g., prohibiting any role with a competitor) are more likely to be upheld for high-level employees who possess confidential information crucial to the employer's business. This case provides a significant precedent for employers with a national reach, guiding them on how to draft enforceable covenants that can withstand judicial scrutiny.
Unlock the full brief for Comprehensive Technologies International v. Software Artisans, Inc.