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

Heading: Customer Restriction

Text: 20 Tyco and Tieman argue, and the District Court ruled, that the customer restriction in Section 4(d) is overbroad because it is not limited to customers that Tieman worked with during his tenure at Victaulic. Even if we accept Tyco and Tieman’s broad reading of the restriction, we cannot determine on the pleadings that it is unreasonable. It may be, for example, that Tieman has specialized knowledge of Victaulic’s pricing structure and marketing techniques that he could use to woo away its customers, or access to other protectable customer-specific information. Moreover, we know little about the extent of Tieman’s contacts, relative to the total number of Victaulic customers. Again, we emphasize that reasonableness under Pennsylvania law is a fact-intensive inquiry; indeed, “[a] restrictive covenant found to be reasonable in one case may be unreasonable in others.” Insulation Corp. of Am. v. Brobston, 667 A.2d 729, 734 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994). Moreover, though still disfavored, Pennsylvania courts recognize that “covenants have developed into important business tools to ‘allow employers to prevent their employees and agents from learning their trade secrets, befriending their customers and then moving into competition with them.’” Hess, 808 A.2d at 159 (quoting Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla. 1974)). At this stage, Victaulic has asserted a legitimate interest in protecting its customer relationships. See Thermo-Guard, Inc. v. Cochran, 596 A.2d 188, 194 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). Whether the covenant reasonably protects that interest is not a question that can be resolved on the pleadings. 21