{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "non-compete", "state": "delaware", "frontmatter": { "title": "Non-Competes in Delaware", "description": "Delaware enforces reasonable non-competes under Court of Chancery and Supreme Court case law, but modern decisions refuse to blue-pencil overbroad covenants and must be read with the physician ban and choice-of-law statute.", "state": "Delaware", "lastReviewed": "2026-06-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "enforceability": "reasonable", "bottomLine": "Delaware enforces reasonable non-competes under Chancery/Supreme Court case law but increasingly refuses to blue-pencil overbroad ones, and physician practice-restricting covenants are void by statute.", "keyLaw": "common law (FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton, 2020 (Del. Ch.)); physician ban 6 Del. C. § 2707", "exceptions": "Physician practice covenants void (§ 2707); home-inspector trainees; sale-of-business reviewed less searchingly", "courtNarrowing": "no", "appliesToContractors": "unclear", "extendedForBreach": "Not addressed", "maxLength": "No statutory limit", "noticeRequirement": "None", "incomeThreshold": "None", "saleOfBusiness": "Sale covenants get less scrutiny than employment covenants; match goodwill", "customerNonSolicit": "Reviewed for reasonableness like a non-compete; overbroad ones not blue-penciled", "employeeNonSolicit": "Reasonableness-tested; overbroad employee non-solicit voided, not blue-penciled (Sunder)" }, "about": [ "Delaware non-compete agreements", "Delaware restrictive covenants", "Delaware blue-pencil doctrine", "Delaware physician non-competes", "Delaware sale-of-business non-competes", "6 Del. C. § 2707", "6 Del. C. § 2708", "DUTSA" ], "translations": [ { "language": "中文", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Español", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Português", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Deutsch", "status": "planned" } ], "relatedForm": { "slug": "openagreements-restrictive-covenant-delaware" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "employee-non-compete-enforceability", "label": "Are employee non-competes enforceable?", "heading": "Are employee non-compete agreements enforceable in Delaware?", "answerText": "Yes, if the covenant is reasonable, protects a legitimate economic interest, and survives the equities. Delaware courts do not mechanically enforce non-competes.", "sources": [ { "id": "fp-uc-reasonableness-test", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton", "citation": "FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton, 2020 WL 1492783, at *6 (Del. Ch. Mar. 27, 2020).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4739986/fp-uc-holdings-llc-fpmcm-llc-and-fast-pace-medical-clinic-pllc-v/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4739986/fp-uc-holdings-llc-fpmcm-llc-and-fast-pace-medical-clinic-pllc-v/#:~:text=Instead%2C%20our%20courts%20carefully%20review,a%20balancing%20of%20the%20equities.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "FP UC Holdings supports Delaware's modern reasonableness framework for non-competes.", "verbatimQuote": "Instead, our courts carefully review the covenants to assure they “(1) [are] reasonable in geographic scope and temporal duration, (2) advance a legitimate economic interest of the party seeking its enforcement, and (3) survive a balancing of the equities.”", "date": "2020-03-27", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-fp-uc-reasonableness-test" }, { "id": "sunder-chancery-holistic-review", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson", "citation": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 305 A.3d 723, 754 (Del. Ch. 2023), aff'd in relevant part, 332 A.3d 472 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9444424/sunder-energy-llc-v-jackson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9444424/sunder-energy-llc-v-jackson/#:~:text=When%20evaluating%20the%20reasonableness%20of,other%20restrictions%20in%20the%20contract.", "proposition": "Sunder Chancery supports evaluating a restrictive covenant by its individual and combined dimensions.", "verbatimQuote": "When evaluating the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant, a court examines the restriction holistically and in context. That means evaluating all of the dimensions of the restrictive covenant and considering how it operates with other restrictions in the contract.", "date": "2023-11-22", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-sunder-chancery-holistic-review" } ] }, { "slug": "reasonableness-test", "label": "What makes a covenant reasonable?", "heading": "What makes a Delaware non-compete reasonable?", "answerText": "Delaware looks at the covenant's time, geography, activity scope, protected interest, consideration, and equitable effect together. A covenant should be no broader than the business interest it protects.", "sources": [ { "id": "payscale-legitimate-interests", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Payscale Inc. v. Norman", "citation": "Payscale Inc. v. Norman, No. 297, 2025, slip op. at 15-16 (Del. Mar. 19, 2026).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811247/payscale-inc-v-erin-norman-and-bettercomp-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811247/payscale-inc-v-erin-norman-and-bettercomp-inc/#:~:text=For%20a%20restrictive%20covenant%2C%20%E2%80%9C%E2%80%98%5Bl%5Degitimate,employer%20confidential%20information%20from%20misuse.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Payscale supports Delaware's recognition of employer goodwill and confidential information as legitimate interests.", "verbatimQuote": "For a restrictive covenant, “‘[l]egitimate interests’ recognized by Delaware law include protection of employer goodwill[] and protection of employer confidential information from misuse.”", "date": "2026-03-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-payscale-legitimate-interests" }, { "id": "payscale-specific-interests-pleaded", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Payscale Inc. v. Norman", "citation": "Payscale Inc. v. Norman, No. 297, 2025, slip op. at 18 (Del. Mar. 19, 2026).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811247/payscale-inc-v-erin-norman-and-bettercomp-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811247/payscale-inc-v-erin-norman-and-bettercomp-inc/#:~:text=Payscale%20alleges%20that%20the%20non%2Dcompete%E2%80%99s,Payscale%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9Cparticularly%20strong%20economic%20interest.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Payscale supports allowing a nationwide non-compete claim to proceed at the pleading stage when the plaintiff pleads business-specific interests.", "verbatimQuote": "Payscale alleges that the non-compete’s terms are directly tied to protecting specific contracts with its most valued customers; at the pleadings stage, it is reasonable to infer that protecting relationships with these key customers is in Payscale’s “particularly strong economic interest.”", "date": "2026-03-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-payscale-specific-interests-pleaded" } ] }, { "slug": "court-narrowing", "label": "Will courts narrow overbroad covenants?", "heading": "Will a Delaware court narrow or blue-pencil an overbroad non-compete?", "answerText": "Usually not as a litigation strategy. Delaware courts retain equitable discretion, but recent Chancery and Supreme Court decisions warn that overbroad covenants may fall rather than be rewritten.", "sources": [ { "id": "sunder-supreme-blue-pencil-discretion", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson", "citation": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 332 A.3d 472, 495 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/#:~:text=This%20is%20not%20to%20say,reformation%20of%20the%20parties%E2%80%99%20agreement.", "proposition": "Sunder Supreme supports the rule that blue-penciling is discretionary and was properly refused on the record before the court.", "verbatimQuote": "This is not to say that Delaware courts should never blue pencil an agreement that is overbroad in some respects. But the relief Appellant sought was a wholesale reformation of the parties’ agreement.", "date": "2024-12-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-sunder-supreme-blue-pencil-discretion" }, { "id": "kodiak-blue-pencil-inequity", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Kodiak Building Partners, LLC v. Adams", "citation": "Kodiak Bldg. Partners, LLC v. Adams, 2022 WL 5240507, at *13 n.108 (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2022).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8247185/kodiak-building-partners-llc-v-philip-d-adams/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8247185/kodiak-building-partners-llc-v-philip-d-adams/#:~:text=The%20inequities%20inherent%20in%20blue%2Dpenciling,to%20have%20violated%20those%20portions.", "proposition": "Kodiak supports refusing partial enforcement where blue-penciling would inequitably save an overbroad non-compete.", "verbatimQuote": "The inequities inherent in blue-penciling a noncompete also counsel against enforcing only those portions of the RCA that are supported by Kodiak’s legitimate business interests, even as Adams appears to have violated those portions.", "date": "2022-10-06", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-kodiak-blue-pencil-inequity" }, { "id": "intertek-no-rescue", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. v. Eastman", "citation": "Intertek Testing Servs. NA, Inc. v. Eastman, 2023 WL 2544236, at *5 (Del. Ch. Mar. 16, 2023).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9384707/intertek-testing-services-na-inc-v-jeff-eastman/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9384707/intertek-testing-services-na-inc-v-jeff-eastman/#:~:text=In%20my%20view%2C%20revising%20the,its%20overreach%20would%20be%20inequitable.", "proposition": "Intertek supports refusing to revise a worldwide non-compete to rescue a sophisticated party from overreach.", "verbatimQuote": "In my view, revising the non-compete to save Intertek—a sophisticated party—from its overreach would be inequitable.", "date": "2023-03-16", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-intertek-no-rescue" }, { "id": "sunder-supreme-perverse-incentives", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson", "citation": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 332 A.3d 472, 495 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/#:~:text=This%20argument%2C%20however%2C%20turns%20the,reasonable%20restrictions%20from%20the%20outset.", "proposition": "Sunder Supreme supports the policy concern that blue-penciling flagrantly overbroad restraints would create perverse drafting incentives.", "verbatimQuote": "This argument, however, turns the analysis on its head and creates perverse incentives for employers drafting restrictive covenants. If employers know that even the most unreasonable covenants will be enforced if an employee’s conduct is sufficiently flagrant, employers will be less incentivized to craft reasonable restrictions from the outset.", "date": "2024-12-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-sunder-supreme-perverse-incentives" } ] }, { "slug": "sale-of-business", "label": "How are sale covenants treated?", "heading": "How does Delaware treat sale-of-business non-competes?", "answerText": "Delaware gives sale-of-business covenants a less searching review than ordinary employment covenants, but the restraint still must match the goodwill and competitive space bought in the deal.", "sources": [ { "id": "derge-sale-less-searching", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Derge v. D&H United Fueling Solutions, Inc.", "citation": "Derge v. D&H United Fueling Sols., Inc., C.A. No. 2025-0087-BWD, slip op. at 12 (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2025).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10749078/william-brian-derge-v-dh-united-fueling-solutions-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10749078/william-brian-derge-v-dh-united-fueling-solutions-inc/#:~:text=By%20comparison%2C%20%E2%80%9Ccovenants%20not%20to,contained%20in%20an%20employment%20contract.%E2%80%99%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Derge supports applying a less searching inquiry to sale-of-business non-competes than to employment non-competes.", "verbatimQuote": "By comparison, “covenants not to compete in the context of a business sale are subject to a ‘less searching’ inquiry than if the covenant ‘had been contained in an employment contract.’”", "date": "2025-12-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-derge-sale-less-searching" }, { "id": "kodiak-goodwill-limit", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Kodiak Building Partners, LLC v. Adams", "citation": "Kodiak Bldg. Partners, LLC v. Adams, 2022 WL 5240507, at *8 (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2022).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8247185/kodiak-building-partners-llc-v-philip-d-adams/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8247185/kodiak-building-partners-llc-v-philip-d-adams/#:~:text=In%20sum%2C%20Kodiak%20has%20a,Adams%20knows%20or%20could%20access.", "proposition": "Kodiak supports limiting sale-of-business covenants to the goodwill, assets, and information acquired in the sale.", "verbatimQuote": "In sum, Kodiak has a legitimate business interest in protecting the goodwill it purchased when it bought Northwest, and the confidential information about Kodiak operations that Adams knows or could access.", "date": "2022-10-06", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-kodiak-goodwill-limit" }, { "id": "derge-substantial-consideration", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Derge v. D&H United Fueling Solutions, Inc.", "citation": "Derge v. D&H United Fueling Sols., Inc., C.A. No. 2025-0087-BWD, slip op. at 16-17 (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2025).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10749078/william-brian-derge-v-dh-united-fueling-solutions-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10749078/william-brian-derge-v-dh-united-fueling-solutions-inc/#:~:text=Plaintiff%20received%20substantial%20consideration,conditioned%20on%20his%20agreement%20to%20the%20Non%2DCompete.", "proposition": "Derge supports greater deference where a restricted seller received substantial merger consideration for the covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "Plaintiff received substantial consideration—nearly $1 million—in a Merger that was conditioned on his agreement to the Non-Compete.", "date": "2025-12-08", "pullQuoteLocator": "Plaintiff received substantial consideration|conditioned on his agreement to the Non-Compete.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-derge-substantial-consideration" }, { "id": "derge-reasonable-sale-scope", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Derge v. D&H United Fueling Solutions, Inc.", "citation": "Derge v. D&H United Fueling Sols., Inc., C.A. No. 2025-0087-BWD, slip op. at 19 (Del. Ch. Dec. 8, 2025).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10749078/william-brian-derge-v-dh-united-fueling-solutions-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10749078/william-brian-derge-v-dh-united-fueling-solutions-inc/#:~:text=The%20record%20here%20shows%20that,interest%20in%20the%20Protected%20Area.", "proposition": "Derge supports enforcing an expansive sale-of-business covenant when it covers the market where the buyer has economic interests.", "verbatimQuote": "The record here shows that Tanknology conducted business across the United States and internationally, and that, as COO, Plaintiff had responsibility over operations across all markets. Thus, Defendants have a legitimate business interest in the Protected Area.", "date": "2025-12-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-derge-reasonable-sale-scope" } ] }, { "slug": "non-solicitation", "label": "How are non-solicitation covenants treated?", "heading": "How does Delaware treat customer and employee non-solicitation covenants?", "answerText": "Delaware reviews both customer and employee non-solicitation covenants for reasonableness the same way it reviews any restrictive covenant, and it refuses to blue-pencil an overbroad one.", "sources": [ { "id": "de-cust-fp-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton", "citation": "FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton, 2020 WL 1492783, at *6 (Del. Ch. Mar. 27, 2020).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4739986/fp-uc-holdings-llc-fpmcm-llc-and-fast-pace-medical-clinic-pllc-v/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4739986/fp-uc-holdings-llc-fpmcm-llc-and-fast-pace-medical-clinic-pllc-v/#:~:text=Instead%2C%20our%20courts%20carefully%20review,a%20balancing%20of%20the%20equities.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Delaware reviews restrictive covenants holistically for reasonableness in scope and duration, legitimate economic interest, and the balance of equities.", "verbatimQuote": "Instead, our courts carefully review the covenants to assure they “(1) [are] reasonable in geographic scope and temporal duration, (2) advance a legitimate economic interest of the party seeking its enforcement, and (3) survive a balancing of the equities.”", "date": "2020-03-27", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-de-cust-fp-reasonableness" }, { "id": "de-cust-sunder-restriction", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson", "citation": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 332 A.3d 472, 481 n.35 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/#:~:text=The%202019%20LLC%20Agreement%20further,Sunder%E2%80%99s%20customers%20(the%20%E2%80%9CCustomer%20Restriction%E2%80%9D)", "proposition": "Sunder Energy concerned a customer non-solicit barring solicitation of and business with the employer's customers.", "verbatimQuote": "The 2019 LLC Agreement further prohibited Incentive Unit holders from soliciting, selling to, accepting any business from, or engaging in any business relationship with any of Sunder’s customers (the “Customer Restriction”)", "date": "2024-12-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-de-cust-sunder-restriction" }, { "id": "de-cust-sunder-noblue", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson", "citation": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 332 A.3d 472, 495 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/#:~:text=This%20argument%2C%20however%2C%20turns%20the,for%20employers%20drafting%20restrictive%20covenants.", "proposition": "Delaware declines to blue-pencil an overbroad restrictive covenant, warning that rescuing unreasonable covenants creates perverse incentives to overdraft.", "verbatimQuote": "This argument, however, turns the analysis on its head and creates perverse incentives for employers drafting restrictive covenants.", "date": "2024-12-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-de-cust-sunder-noblue" }, { "id": "de-emp-fp-test", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton", "citation": "FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton, 2020 WL 1492783 (Del. Ch. Mar. 27, 2020).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4739986/fp-uc-holdings-llc-fpmcm-llc-and-fast-pace-medical-clinic-pllc-v/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4739986/fp-uc-holdings-llc-fpmcm-llc-and-fast-pace-medical-clinic-pllc-v/#:~:text=Under%20Delaware%20law%2C%20a%20non%2Dsolicitation,a%20balance%20of%20the%20equities.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "FP UC Holdings states Delaware's four-part reasonableness test specifically for enforcing a non-solicitation covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "Under Delaware law, a non-solicitation covenant is enforceable if it “(1) meets general contract law requirements, (2) is reasonable in scope and duration, (3) advances a legitimate economic interest of the party enforcing the covenant, and (4) survives a balance of the equities.”", "date": "2020-03-27", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-de-emp-fp-test" }, { "id": "de-emp-sunder-restriction", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson", "citation": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 332 A.3d 472 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/#:~:text=The%20Personnel%20Restriction%20prohibited%20Incentive,had%20a%20business%20relationship%20with.", "proposition": "Sunder's Personnel Restriction is a true employee/contractor non-solicit barring recruitment of the company's personnel.", "verbatimQuote": "The Personnel Restriction prohibited Incentive Unit holders and their affiliates from recruiting or “encourag[ing] to leave” any individual whom Sunder employed, received services from, or had a business relationship with.", "date": "2024-12-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-de-emp-sunder-restriction" }, { "id": "de-emp-sunder-overbroad", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson", "citation": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 332 A.3d 472, 502 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/#:~:text=The%20Personnel%20Restriction%20is%20similarly,for%20any%20period%20of%20time.", "proposition": "Sunder held the employee non-solicit facially overbroad because it reached anyone ever employed by the company for any period.", "verbatimQuote": "The Personnel Restriction is similarly overbroad, preventing Jackson and his “affiliates” from directly or indirectly communicating regarding employment with any person who has ever been employed by Sunder for any period of time.", "date": "2024-12-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-de-emp-sunder-overbroad" }, { "id": "de-ns-sunder-refuse", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson", "citation": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 332 A.3d 472, 492 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/#:~:text=The%20Court%20of%20Chancery%20was,to%20blue%20pencil%20the%20covenants.", "proposition": "The Delaware Supreme Court held the Court of Chancery acted within its discretion in refusing to blue-pencil the overbroad covenants.", "verbatimQuote": "The Court of Chancery was well within its discretion to apply that precedent and refuse to blue pencil the covenants.", "date": "2024-12-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-de-ns-sunder-refuse" } ] }, { "slug": "forfeiture-for-competition", "label": "Are forfeiture provisions different?", "heading": "Are equity-forfeiture or forfeiture-for-competition provisions enforceable in Delaware?", "answerText": "Yes — and not only in the limited-partnership setting. Delaware treats a forfeiture-for-competition provision as a condition on a deferred benefit rather than an injunction-backed restraint, and reviews it under the employee-choice doctrine instead of the ordinary reasonableness test.", "sources": [ { "id": "ainslie-condition-precedent", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Ainslie", "citation": "Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Ainslie, 312 A.3d 674, 690 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9469727/cantor-fitzgerald-lp-v-ainslie/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9469727/cantor-fitzgerald-lp-v-ainslie/#:~:text=It%20found%2C%20instead%2C%20that%20the,not%20contest%20it%20on%20appeal.", "proposition": "Ainslie supports treating the forfeiture-for-competition device as a condition precedent rather than a liquidated-damages remedy.", "verbatimQuote": "It found, instead, that the Competitive Activity Condition was a condition precedent to Cantor Fitzgerald’s duty to pay the Conditioned Amounts. We agree with that conclusion, and the Plaintiffs do not contest it on appeal.", "date": "2024-01-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-ainslie-condition-precedent" }, { "id": "ainslie-employee-choice-distinction", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Ainslie", "citation": "Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Ainslie, 312 A.3d 674, 694 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9469727/cantor-fitzgerald-lp-v-ainslie/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9469727/cantor-fitzgerald-lp-v-ainslie/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%20Competitive%20Activity%20Condition,does%20competition%20support%20injunctive%20relief.", "proposition": "Ainslie supports the distinction between a restraint on work and a forfeiture of a contingent benefit.", "verbatimQuote": "Thus, the Competitive Activity Condition does not restrict competition or a former partner’s ability to work; nor does competition support injunctive relief.", "date": "2024-01-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-ainslie-employee-choice-distinction" }, { "id": "ainslie-summary-rule", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Ainslie", "citation": "Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Ainslie, 312 A.3d 674, 700 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9469727/cantor-fitzgerald-lp-v-ainslie/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9469727/cantor-fitzgerald-lp-v-ainslie/#:~:text=To%20sum%20up%2C%20we%20disagree,subject%20to%20review%20for%20reasonableness.", "proposition": "Ainslie supports enforcing a limited partnership forfeiture-for-competition clause against sophisticated parties.", "verbatimQuote": "To sum up, we disagree with the Court of Chancery’s conclusion that forfeiture-for-competition provisions like the one at issue here are restraints of trade subject to review for reasonableness.", "date": "2024-01-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-ainslie-summary-rule" }, { "id": "lkq-not-limited-to-lp", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "LKQ Corp. v. Rutledge", "citation": "LKQ Corp. v. Rutledge, No. 110, 2024 (Del. Dec. 18, 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10296559/lkq-corporation-v-robert-rutledge/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10296559/lkq-corporation-v-robert-rutledge/#:~:text=Cantor%20Fitzgerald%20is%20not%20restricted,to%20the%20limited%20partnership%20context.", "proposition": "LKQ supports applying the employee-choice doctrine to forfeiture-for-competition provisions beyond the limited-partnership context, including corporate equity awards.", "verbatimQuote": "Cantor Fitzgerald is not restricted to the limited partnership context.", "date": "2024-12-18", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-lkq-not-limited-to-lp" } ] }, { "slug": "consideration", "label": "What consideration is required?", "heading": "What consideration is required for a Delaware non-compete?", "answerText": "Delaware can treat continued at-will employment as sufficient consideration when signing is a condition of continued employment, and the Delaware Supreme Court measures consideration at contract formation rather than enforcement.", "sources": [ { "id": "powell-continued-employment", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Research & Trading Corp. v. Powell", "citation": "Research & Trading Corp. v. Powell, 468 A.2d 1301, 1305 (Del. Ch. 1983).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2275060/research-trading-corp-v-powell/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2275060/research-trading-corp-v-powell/#:~:text=The%20Court%20finds%20there%20was,support%20an%20enforceable%20restrictive%20covenant.", "proposition": "Powell supports Delaware's rule that continued employment can supply consideration for a restrictive covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "The Court finds there was sufficient consideration at the time of the signing of the covenant to support an enforceable restrictive covenant.", "date": "1983-12-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-powell-continued-employment" }, { "id": "doorly-formation-timing", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "North American Fire Ultimate Holdings, LP v. Doorly", "citation": "N. Am. Fire Ultimate Holdings, LP v. Doorly, No. 142, 2025, order at 2 (Del. Feb. 3, 2026).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10783312/north-american-fire-ultimate-holdings-lp-v-alan-doorly/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10783312/north-american-fire-ultimate-holdings-lp-v-alan-doorly/#:~:text=Because%20consideration%20is%20measured%20at,and%20remand%20for%20further%20proceedings.", "proposition": "Doorly supports measuring consideration at contract formation rather than at enforcement.", "verbatimQuote": "Because consideration is measured at the time of contracting and not at the time of enforcement, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.", "date": "2026-02-03", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-doorly-formation-timing" }, { "id": "powell-condition-employment", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Research & Trading Corp. v. Powell", "citation": "Research & Trading Corp. v. Powell, 468 A.2d 1301, 1305 (Del. Ch. 1983).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2275060/research-trading-corp-v-powell/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2275060/research-trading-corp-v-powell/#:~:text=Powell%20was%20told%20he%20would,if%20he%20did%20not%20sign.", "proposition": "Powell supports enforcing a covenant where signing was a condition of keeping the position.", "verbatimQuote": "Powell was told he would lose the position if he did not sign.", "date": "1983-12-30", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-powell-condition-employment" }, { "id": "doorly-not-reevaluated", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "North American Fire Ultimate Holdings, LP v. Doorly", "citation": "N. Am. Fire Ultimate Holdings, LP v. Doorly, No. 142, 2025, order at 6 (Del. Feb. 3, 2026).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10783312/north-american-fire-ultimate-holdings-lp-v-alan-doorly/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10783312/north-american-fire-ultimate-holdings-lp-v-alan-doorly/#:~:text=Consideration%20is%20measured%20at%20the%20time%20of%20formation,at%20the%20time%20of%20enforcement.", "proposition": "Doorly supports that consideration is not reevaluated when the plaintiff seeks enforcement.", "verbatimQuote": "Consideration is measured at the time of formation and is not reevaluated at the time of enforcement.", "date": "2026-02-03", "pullQuoteLocator": "Consideration is measured at the time of formation|at the time of enforcement.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-doorly-not-reevaluated" }, { "id": "payscale-adequacy-equities", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Payscale Inc. v. Norman", "citation": "Payscale Inc. v. Norman, No. 297, 2025, slip op. at 17 (Del. Mar. 19, 2026).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811247/payscale-inc-v-erin-norman-and-bettercomp-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811247/payscale-inc-v-erin-norman-and-bettercomp-inc/#:~:text=That%20is%20not%20to%20suggest,the%20consideration%20that%20supports%20it.", "proposition": "Payscale supports that the adequacy of consideration can still bear on the balancing of the equities even though consideration is measured at formation.", "verbatimQuote": "That is not to suggest that the adequacy of consideration is irrelevant in the context of restrictive covenants; the balancing-of-the-equities inquiry affords the court discretion to weigh the breadth of a restrictive covenant against the consideration that supports it.", "date": "2026-03-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-payscale-adequacy-equities" } ] }, { "slug": "physician-noncompetes", "label": "Are physician non-competes allowed?", "heading": "Are physician non-competes allowed in Delaware?", "answerText": "No, not if the covenant restricts a physician's right to practice medicine by place or time after termination. Delaware Code § 2707 makes that type of physician non-compete void.", "sources": [ { "id": "delaware-physician-void", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "6 Del. C. § 2707", "citation": "6 Del. C. § 2707.", "enactedCitation": "6 Del. C. § 2707", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c027/sc01/index.html", "proposition": "6 Del. C. § 2707 supports the rule that physician non-competes restricting practice by locale or time after termination are void.", "verbatimQuote": "Any covenant not to compete provision of an employment, partnership or corporate agreement between and/or among physicians which restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine in a particular locale and/or for a defined period of time, upon the termination of the principal agreement of which the said provision is a part, shall be void; except that all other provisions of such an agreement shall be enforceable at law, including provisions which require the payment of damages in an amount that is reasonably related to the injury suffered by reason of termination of the principal agreement.", "date": "1983-07-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-delaware-physician-void" }, { "id": "delaware-physician-damages", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "6 Del. C. § 2707", "citation": "6 Del. C. § 2707.", "enactedCitation": "6 Del. C. § 2707", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c027/sc01/index.html", "proposition": "6 Del. C. § 2707 supports allowing reasonably related damages provisions in physician agreements, including damages related to competition.", "verbatimQuote": "Provisions which require the payment of damages upon termination of the principal agreement may include, but not be limited to, damages related to competition.", "date": "1983-07-13", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-delaware-physician-damages" } ] }, { "slug": "delaware-choice-of-law", "label": "Can contracts choose Delaware law?", "heading": "Can a contract choose Delaware law to govern a non-compete?", "answerText": "Often yes for qualifying contracts, but not absolutely. Section 2708 supports Delaware choice-of-law clauses, while Delaware conflict-of-law decisions can still defer to another state's fundamental non-compete policy.", "sources": [ { "id": "delaware-choice-law-statute", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "6 Del. C. § 2708", "citation": "6 Del. C. § 2708(a).", "enactedCitation": "6 Del. C. § 2708", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c027/sc01/index.html", "proposition": "6 Del. C. § 2708 supports Delaware choice-of-law clauses in qualifying contracts.", "verbatimQuote": "The foregoing shall conclusively be presumed to be a significant, material and reasonable relationship with this State and shall be enforced whether or not there are other relationships with this State.", "date": "1993-07-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-delaware-choice-law-statute" }, { "id": "delaware-choice-law-threshold", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "6 Del. C. § 2708", "citation": "6 Del. C. § 2708(c).", "enactedCitation": "6 Del. C. § 2708", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c027/sc01/index.html", "proposition": "6 Del. C. § 2708 excludes contracts involving less than $100,000 from the statutory choice-of-law rule.", "verbatimQuote": "This section shall not apply to any contract, agreement or other undertaking: (1) To the extent provided to the contrary in § 1-301(c) of this title; or (2) Involving less than $100,000.", "date": "1993-07-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-delaware-choice-law-threshold" }, { "id": "ascension-public-policy-limit", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ascension Insurance Holdings, LLC v. Underwood", "citation": "Ascension Ins. Holdings, LLC v. Underwood, 2015 WL 356002, at *5 (Del. Ch. Jan. 28, 2015).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2774269/ascension-insurance-holdings-llc-v-roberts-f-under/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2774269/ascension-insurance-holdings-llc-v-roberts-f-under/#:~:text=I%20cannot%20agree%20with%20the,the%20default%20state%E2%80%99s%20public%20policy.", "proposition": "Ascension supports disregarding Delaware choice of law where another state has a materially greater fundamental policy interest in the non-compete.", "verbatimQuote": "I cannot agree with the Plaintiff, however, that the teaching of DGWL is that Delaware’s broad interest in freedom of contract will always, or even routinely, trump the default state’s public policy.", "date": "2015-01-28", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-ascension-public-policy-limit" }, { "id": "fp-uc-choice-law-limit", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton", "citation": "FP UC Holdings, LLC v. Hamilton, 2020 WL 1492783, at *10 (Del. Ch. Mar. 27, 2020).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4739986/fp-uc-holdings-llc-fpmcm-llc-and-fast-pace-medical-clinic-pllc-v/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4739986/fp-uc-holdings-llc-fpmcm-llc-and-fast-pace-medical-clinic-pllc-v/#:~:text=If%20these%20narrow%20%E2%80%9Cquestions%20are,apply%20notwithstanding%20the%20choice%2Dof%2Dlaw%20provision.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "FP UC Holdings supports applying another state's law notwithstanding a Delaware choice-of-law clause where that state has the stronger non-compete policy interest.", "verbatimQuote": "If these narrow “questions are answered in the affirmative, [Alabama] law will apply notwithstanding the choice-of-law provision.”", "date": "2020-03-27", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-fp-uc-choice-law-limit" } ] }, { "slug": "trade-secrets-confidentiality", "label": "How do trade secrets fit in?", "heading": "How do trade-secret and confidentiality protections fit in?", "answerText": "DUTSA gives Delaware employers targeted trade-secret remedies that can substitute for, or sit beside, a narrower covenant package. It protects information that has independent economic value from secrecy and is subject to reasonable secrecy efforts.", "sources": [ { "id": "dutsa-trade-secret-definition", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "6 Del. C. § 2001", "citation": "6 Del. C. § 2001(4).", "enactedCitation": "6 Del. C. § 2001", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c020/index.html", "proposition": "DUTSA supports Delaware's statutory definition of trade secret.", "verbatimQuote": "“Trade secret” shall mean information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process, that: a. Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and b. Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.", "date": "1982-07-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-dutsa-trade-secret-definition" }, { "id": "dutsa-injunctive-relief", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "6 Del. C. § 2002", "citation": "6 Del. C. § 2002(a).", "enactedCitation": "6 Del. C. § 2002", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c020/index.html", "proposition": "DUTSA supports injunctions for actual or threatened misappropriation.", "verbatimQuote": "(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.", "date": "1982-07-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-dutsa-injunctive-relief" }, { "id": "dutsa-damages", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "6 Del. C. § 2003", "citation": "6 Del. C. § 2003(a).", "enactedCitation": "6 Del. C. § 2003", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c020/index.html", "proposition": "DUTSA supports damages for actual loss, unjust enrichment, reasonable royalty, and exemplary damages for wilful and malicious misappropriation.", "verbatimQuote": "Damages can include both the actual loss caused by misappropriation and the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing actual loss.", "date": "1982-07-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-dutsa-damages" }, { "id": "dutsa-fees", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "6 Del. C. § 2004", "citation": "6 Del. C. § 2004.", "enactedCitation": "6 Del. C. § 2004", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c020/index.html", "proposition": "DUTSA supports attorney fee shifting in specified bad-faith and wilful-and-malicious circumstances.", "verbatimQuote": "If a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith, a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith, or wilful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.", "date": "1982-07-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-dutsa-fees" }, { "id": "dutsa-contract-remedies", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "6 Del. C. § 2007", "citation": "6 Del. C. § 2007(b)(1).", "enactedCitation": "6 Del. C. § 2007", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title6/c020/index.html", "proposition": "DUTSA supports preserving contractual remedies whether or not they are based on trade-secret misappropriation.", "verbatimQuote": "(1) Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret;", "date": "1982-07-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-dutsa-contract-remedies" } ] }, { "slug": "home-inspector-trainees", "label": "Are there other statutory bans?", "heading": "Are there other Delaware statutory non-compete limits?", "answerText": "Yes. Delaware separately protects home inspector trainees: a trainee cannot be required to sign a non-compete with a supervising licensed home inspector as a condition of satisfying trainee requirements.", "sources": [ { "id": "home-inspector-trainee-ban", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "24 Del. C. § 4109(d)", "citation": "24 Del. C. § 4109(d).", "enactedCitation": "24 Del. C. § 4109(d)", "url": "https://delcode.delaware.gov/title24/c041/sc02/index.html", "proposition": "24 Del. C. § 4109(d) supports the rule that home inspector trainees cannot be required to execute a non-compete with a supervising inspector as a condition of trainee requirements.", "verbatimQuote": "(d) No person, while registered as a home inspector trainee, shall be required to pay any fee, charge or other thing of value to a supervising licensed home inspector, or be required to execute a covenant not to compete with a supervising licensed home inspector, as a condition of satisfying the home inspector trainee requirements of this subchapter.", "date": "2014-08-06", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-home-inspector-trainee-ban" } ] }, { "slug": "recent-developments", "label": "What changed recently?", "heading": "What are the key recent developments in Delaware non-compete law?", "answerText": "From 2024 through 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a run of restrictive-covenant decisions spanning the employee-choice doctrine, blue-pencil discretion, consideration timing, and pleading-stage treatment of broad employee covenants.", "sources": [ { "id": "ainslie-recent-track", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Ainslie", "citation": "Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Ainslie, 312 A.3d 674, 695 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9469727/cantor-fitzgerald-lp-v-ainslie/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9469727/cantor-fitzgerald-lp-v-ainslie/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%20Competitive%20Activity%20Condition,does%20competition%20support%20injunctive%20relief.", "proposition": "Ainslie is a recent Delaware Supreme Court development distinguishing forfeiture-for-competition from ordinary non-compete restraints.", "verbatimQuote": "Thus, the Competitive Activity Condition does not restrict competition or a former partner’s ability to work; nor does competition support injunctive relief.", "date": "2024-01-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-ainslie-recent-track" }, { "id": "lkq-recent-track", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "LKQ Corp. v. Rutledge", "citation": "LKQ Corp. v. Rutledge, No. 110, 2024 (Del. Dec. 18, 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10296559/lkq-corporation-v-robert-rutledge/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10296559/lkq-corporation-v-robert-rutledge/#:~:text=Cantor%20Fitzgerald%20is%20not%20restricted,to%20the%20limited%20partnership%20context.", "proposition": "LKQ is a recent Delaware Supreme Court development extending the employee-choice doctrine beyond limited partnerships to corporate equity forfeiture-for-competition provisions.", "verbatimQuote": "Cantor Fitzgerald is not restricted to the limited partnership context.", "date": "2024-12-18", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-lkq-recent-track" }, { "id": "sunder-recent-track", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson", "citation": "Sunder Energy, LLC v. Jackson, 332 A.3d 472, 492 (Del. 2024).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10291288/sunder-energy-llc-v-tyler-jackson/#:~:text=The%20Court%20of%20Chancery%20was,to%20blue%20pencil%20the%20covenants.", "proposition": "Sunder Supreme is a recent Delaware Supreme Court development affirming refusal to blue-pencil overbroad covenants.", "verbatimQuote": "The Court of Chancery was well within its discretion to apply that precedent and refuse to blue pencil the covenants.", "date": "2024-12-10", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-sunder-recent-track" }, { "id": "doorly-recent-track", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "North American Fire Ultimate Holdings, LP v. Doorly", "citation": "N. Am. Fire Ultimate Holdings, LP v. Doorly, No. 142, 2025, order at 2 (Del. Feb. 3, 2026).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10783312/north-american-fire-ultimate-holdings-lp-v-alan-doorly/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10783312/north-american-fire-ultimate-holdings-lp-v-alan-doorly/#:~:text=Because%20consideration%20is%20measured%20at,and%20remand%20for%20further%20proceedings.", "proposition": "Doorly is a recent Delaware Supreme Court development clarifying that consideration is measured at contract formation.", "verbatimQuote": "Because consideration is measured at the time of contracting and not at the time of enforcement, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.", "date": "2026-02-03", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-doorly-recent-track" }, { "id": "payscale-recent-track", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Payscale Inc. v. Norman", "citation": "Payscale Inc. v. Norman, No. 297, 2025, slip op. at 18 (Del. Mar. 19, 2026).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811247/payscale-inc-v-erin-norman-and-bettercomp-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811247/payscale-inc-v-erin-norman-and-bettercomp-inc/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20the%20trial%20court%20erred,Norman%20breached%20the%20non%2Dcompete%20provision.", "proposition": "Payscale is a recent Delaware Supreme Court development allowing a restrictive covenant claim to proceed at the pleading stage based on pleaded business-specific interests.", "verbatimQuote": "Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing Payscale’s claim that Norman breached the non-compete provision.", "date": "2026-03-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/non-compete/us/delaware#src-payscale-recent-track" } ] } ] } }