Background: Executive Departure and Restrictive Covenants

Erick Brenner was a longtime Galderma Laboratories employee and executive. On June 7, 2024, he executed a Protective Covenants Agreement ("PCA") imposing post-employment restrictions including a non-compete, customer and worker non-solicits, and confidentiality obligations. Following his departure from Galderma, Brenner accepted a CEO position at a company competing directly with Galderma. Galderma sought a temporary injunction in Division 8 of the Texas Business Court to enforce the restrictive covenants.

The Dispute: Multiple Restrictive Covenant Claims

Galderma's application sought to enforce four separate restrictive covenants: (1) the non-compete prohibiting Brenner from providing services to any competitor in roles involving "Competitive Activity" within the "Restricted Area"; (2) a customer non-solicit barring solicitation of "Covered Customers" for competing products; (3) a worker non-solicit preventing recruitment of "Covered Workers"; and (4) confidentiality provisions protecting trade secrets and proprietary information. The court also considered claims under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The evidentiary hearing on February 23, 2026, required the court to apply the three-part test for temporary injunctions: viable cause of action, probable right to relief, and probable imminent irreparable injury.

The Court's Ruling: Partial Grant with Reformation

The court granted temporary injunctive relief on the non-compete claim but reformed the covenant's scope. The memorandum opinion indicates the court found Galderma established a probable right to relief and irreparable harm on the non-compete, but concluded certain services covered by the non-compete agreement were overbroad and required blue pencil reformation under Texas law. The court denied relief on all other claims. On the customer and worker non-solicits, Galderma failed to demonstrate the requisite showing for temporary relief. Similarly, the confidentiality claim and TUTSA allegations did not meet the standard for injunctive relief at this preliminary stage.

Legal Framework Applied

The court applied established Texas law requiring applicants for temporary injunctions to establish: (a) a viable cause of action; (b) a probable right to the relief sought; and (c) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. The court emphasized that a temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy designed to preserve the status quo until the rights of the parties can be determined at trial, and that its order does not constitute a final adjudication of the parties' claims or defenses. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683, the court's order must state the reasons for issuance, be specific in terms, and describe in reasonable detail the acts restrained.

Significance for Texas Commercial Practice

This decision provides early guidance on how the Business Court of Texas will approach enforcement of restrictive covenants, particularly the application of the blue pencil doctrine to reform overbroad non-compete provisions. The ruling demonstrates the court's willingness to grant partial relief while narrowing covenant scope to comply with Texas reasonableness requirements. The denial of relief on the trade secrets claims at the temporary injunction stage—despite allegations of pre-departure conduct—illustrates the substantial burden applicants face in demonstrating both probable success on the merits and irreparable harm for claims beyond straightforward non-compete violations. The case was filed as Cause No. 26-BC08B-0003 and decided on March 12, 2026.