Listen to this post

Knowing that there’s no rule against noncompetes, employers are back to drafting agreements with an eye to enforceability according to state law. While it is always important to know the law of the state where the employee works (and lives) to draft an enforceable noncompete, there are some general lessons that can be taken from a recent Texas case where the employer sued a former executive to enforce its restrictive covenants.

The Case

On March 12, 2026, in Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Brenner, the Texas Business Court granted a temporary injunction enforcing the executive’s noncompete agreement with some modifications. Erick Brenner was a senior executive who oversaw Galderma’s Injectable Aesthetics Division, including hyaluronic acid dermal fillers, which was a $1.8 billion portfolio. So Brenner had confidential information about a big-dollar business. He resigned, then took a job as CEO of Prollenium Medical Technologies, a Canadian company that develops and markets the same types of fillers and competes in the U.S. with Galderma.

Galderma filed suit, alleging breach of contract and violation of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA). Following a temporary injunction hearing, the court concluded that Galderma did not show any evidence that Brenner had solicited customers or employees, which was prohibited by the agreement. Further, Galderma’s forensic evidence was inconclusive as to whether Brenner had downloaded or transferred any confidential information to an external site — and, therefore, the court held that “mere suspicion or apprehension of a possible breach” of a confidentiality covenant or TUTSA is insufficient because an injunction requires evidence of a probable violation or misappropriation.

However, when it came to violation of the noncompetition provision, the court found that Brenner went to work in the same narrowly defined market where he had exercised senior executive authority for Galderma — hyaluronic acid dermal fillers. Doing so “presents a substantial and ongoing risk that Galderma’s competitively sensitive information will inform Prollenium’s strategic decision-making.” Further, the risk of harm here was not reliant on intentional misuse, but because it would be practically impossible to compartmentalize confidential information if Brenner was leading a competitor in the same market segment. This line of thinking sounds a lot like inevitable disclosure without using the words inevitable disclosure.

The court enforced the noncompete as follows:

  • Twelve months was a reasonable amount of time.
  • The hyaluronic acid dermal filler market was an appropriate scope, but if Galderma had tried to enforce the catch-all in the contract — “other activity that is likely to result in the use or disclosure of Confidential Information” — that might have been too broad.
  • Nationwide was an appropriate geographic restriction as that tracked Brenner’s reach in his executive role for Galderma (declining to extend the restriction worldwide as requested by Galderma because the agreement extended to locations “about which he received Confidential Information”).
  • “Competitive activity” must be limited to services that are the same or substantially similar to those Brenner performed in the relevant market for Galderma (declining to enforce “owning, operating, or managing a business that is a Competitor” as an unlawful ban on employment in any capacity with a competitor).

Drafting takeaways for employers

  • Narrowly tailoring restrictions will be rewarded by the court. In Galderma, the court had no problem enforcing the noncompete in a narrow market like the filler market.
  • Avoid catch-all phrases like “or about which employee received Confidential Information” because that may render your restriction unenforceable as written.
  • Consider using a lookback period for your restrictions — e.g., an employee may not solicit the clients or employees that they had contact with during the 12- or 24-month period prior to the employee’s termination date.
  • While it is tempting to argue that an executive cannot work in any role in a competing business, prohibiting them from working in the same or a similar role appears more reasonable and is much more likely to be enforced.

As always, if you want to talk through your burning noncompete questions or to get help with drafting, the Bradley team is ready to help!