USA – MINNESOTA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Barry Landy, Jacob Siegel and Patrick “Gus” Cochran, Ciresi Conlin LLP
Ciresi Conlin LLP 225 South 6th St. Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 USA Tel: 612 361 8200 Email: info@ciresiconlin.com Web: ciresiconlin.com
When it comes to business and commerce, Minnesota punches above its weight. Although Minnesota has only 1.7% of the United States population, it ranks third per capita in the number of Fortune 500 compa - nies headquartered in the state. Perhaps for that rea - son, Minnesota continues to be a hot jurisdiction for trade secret litigation, both in federal and state courts. Minnesota was the first state to adopt the Uniform Trade Secret Act, in 1980. Minnesota courts have developed a robust body of law over the past four decades interpreting the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA). Since the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) became law in 2016, Minnesota federal courts have also regularly addressed cases brought under federal trade secret law, largely inter - preting the DTSA consistently with the MUTSA. In this update, we discuss recent highlights in trade secret litigation in Minnesota federal and state courts. Statutory Limits on Non-Competes Increase the Importance of Trade Secret Claims in Employee Mobility Cases In 2023, Minnesota became the fourth state to ban non-compete clauses in employment contracts. Minn. Stat. § 181.988. Minnesota’s non-compete ban applies to all contracts entered on or after 1 July 2023, with employees or independent contractors. The stat - ute only excepts contracts between business owners in connection with the sale or dissolution of a busi - ness. Id., subd. 2 (b). Although the statute bans nearly all non-compete agreements, its definition of “covenant not to com - pete” excludes non-solicitation agreements, non- disclosure agreements, and agreements “designed to
protect trade secrets or confidential information”. Id., subd. 1. We expect that employee mobility litigation in Minnesota will shift increasingly to focus on statutory trade secret claims, along with claims for breaches of non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreements. Indeed, although the statutory prohibition on employ - ee non-competes is not retroactive, we have seen sev - eral high-profile matters involving trade secret claims against former employers over the past three years. For instance, in February 2026, insurance brokerage Brown & Brown brought an action in Minnesota state court against competitor Howden and more than a dozen former Brown & Brown employees, alleging that Howden had led a “corporate raid” by recruiting nearly 300 of Brown & Brown’s employees. In addition to contract and fiduciary duty claims, Brown & Brown brought claims under the MUTSA, alleging that the former employees misappropriated “extensive and highly sensitive customer and potential customer data” and employee compensation information. Com - plaint, Brown & Brown, Inc. v Howden US Servs., LLC, No 27-CV-26-2742 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Feb. 19, 2026). This trend towards trade secret claims looks set to accelerate in the coming years, as fewer enforceable non-competes remain in effect and employers look for other avenues to challenge competition by former employees. Identifying Trade Secrets Early – and With Precision – Remains a Key Battleground in Minnesota In Minnesota, as is true in courts around the coun - try, one of the most fiercely contested issues in trade secret litigation is: what are the trade secrets at issue? Disputes frequently arise not only over what must be
210 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook