Opinion ID: 3026440
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Geographic Limitation

Text: Tyco and Tieman also contend that the covenant is not “reasonably limited in . . . geographical extent,” Hess, 808 A.2d at 917, because section 4(c) prevents Tieman from selling certain products for nine named competitors (one of which is Tyco) anywhere Victaulic products are sold. Once again we cannot reach this conclusion on the pleadings. In this Information Age, a per se rule against broad geographic restrictions would seem hopelessly antiquated, and, indeed, Pennsylvania courts (and federal district courts applying Pennsylvania law) have found broad geographic restrictions reasonable so long as they are roughly consonant with the scope of the employee’s duties. See, e.g., Volunteer Fireman’s Ins. Servs., Inc. v. CIGNA Prop. & Cas. Ins. Agency, 693 A.2d 1330, 1338 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997); Nat’l Bus. Servs. v. Wright, 2 F. Supp. 701, 708 (E.D. Pa. 1998); Graphic Mgmt. Assocs. v. Hatt, No. 97 Civ. 6961, 1998 WL 159035, at  (E.D. Pa. Mar. 18, 1998) (Van Antwerpen, J.); Kramer v. Robec, Inc., 824 F. Supp. 508, 512 (E.D. Pa. 1992). Here, we do not know from the pleadings where Victaulic sells products.6 Victaulic has alleged 6 The District Court took judicial notice of the fact that Victaulic sells products everywhere in the world because it claims on its website to be a “global” company. In addition to the problems with taking judicial notice of this “fact,” see Part III.A, supra, the word “global” in a company’s marketing material (where puffery is the norm) needs more context. Among other deficiencies, it certainly gives no useful indication 22 that Tieman developed relationships with customers across North America. From this, it is possible that the geographic scope of the covenant is reasonable. Moreover, the District Court should have considered the geographic element of section 4(c) in the context of the overall restriction. That section only prevents Tieman from working for nine named competitors—presumably businesses that, like Victaulic, are large-scale suppliers of the same kinds of products. These competitors might be able to use a former Victaulic employee’s specialized knowledge of Victaulic’s product lines and sales strategies anywhere in the world that the two compete. See Insulation Corp. of Am., 667 A.2d at 734 (“An employee may receive specialized training and skills, and learn the carefully guarded methods of doing business which are the trade secrets of a particular enterprise. To prevent an employee from utilizing such training and information in competition with his former employer, for the patronage of the public at large, restrictive covenants are entered into.”). In addition, if Victaulic gave Tieman some sort of specialized training, it would be legitimate for it to prevent him from using that training for the benefit of its primary competitors anywhere they compete. Id. Thus, the District Court should not have concluded at this stage that the geographic scope of section 4(c) was unreasonable. of exactly where Victaulic products are actually sold for comparison against the scope of Tieman’s work. 23