The District Court found that Lavin had in-depth knowledge of CVS Caremark`s strategic initiatives and detailed information about its contracts with retail pharmacies and paying agencies. On this basis, the Court of Appeal rejected the Lavin Court of Appeal`s argument that CVS`s interests were sufficiently protected by the no-debauchery and confidentiality agreements to render the application of the non-competition clause inappropriate. The opinion did not explicitly refer to what is known as the “inevitable investigative doctrine,” but the doctrine certainly censored itself in the case. According to the Court of Appeal, “it weighs on the gullibility to think that a high-end executive like Lavin could develop a strategy for PillPack without diving into this knowledge.” Unlike other countries, employers operating in California are not recommended to include a non-compete clause in their agreements (unless the three exceptions above apply), as an employer`s use of an illegal non-compete clause may be contrary to California`s unfair competition law. (For further discussion of how an illegal non-compete clause may be contrary to unfair competition law, see Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 881, 906-908). The health sector is following the case closely, not for the application of non-competition, but for indications on PillPack`s future plans. For example, in a statement in this case, the CEO of PillPack did not deny that PillPack was examining a PBM model to complement its services. Contractual relations are generally governed by the law of the State. But most states impose disgraced restrictions of competition and most courts apply them only if appropriate or “if the restriction does not go beyond what appears necessary to protect those in whoever they are made.” (As the judge in Lavin said in his opinion.) The Court of Appeal upheld the interim order.
Most states, such as Rhode Island, expect a non-compete agreement to contain appropriate geographic coverage. . . .