Texas Business Court Decision – March 12, 2026

No. 26-BC08B-0003  Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Erick Brenner (Eighth Division, Judge Stagner)  26-bc08b-0003-galderma-laboratories-v-brenner-2026-tex-bus-12.pdf

Injunctions/Noncompetition Agreements. Defendant Brenner was a longtime Galderma employee and top executive and signed a noncompete agreement as part of a”Protective Covenants Agreement” or PCA, which imposed post-employment restrictions that lasted for twelve months from his termination date. In his position as general manager of one of Galderma’s division and later as ad interim head of U.S. operations, he had extensive access to confidential information and trade secrets, as well as future marketing plans.  Shortly after his termination in September, 2025, he accepted the position of Chief Executive Officer with one of Galderma’s direct competitors.  Galderma brought this action for breach of contract and violation of the  Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act and moved for a temporary injunction. The application is granted.

Held: (1) on the current record, Galderma is likely to succeed on its claims that Brenner has breached the noncompete provisions of the  PCA; the provision is likely enforceable under Section 15.50 of the Texas Business Code because it was ancillary to an otherwise enforceable agreement and contained reasonable time, geographic scope, and activity limitations; Brenner’s acceptance of the new position with Galderma’s direct competitor, in the product segment he managed for the company, falls within the scope of activity prohibited by the noncompete provision;

(2) with respect to other provisions of the PCA covering customer non-solicitation and worker non-solicitation, Galderma presented no evidence that Brenner had engaged in either type of solicitation or that such solicitation was threatened; on this record, the court cannot conclude that Galderma has established a probable right of recovery on either of the non-solicitation provisions;

(3) similarly, the evidence does not show that Brenner had used or disclosed any of Galderma’s confidential information in violation of the PCA, and Galderma had not demonstrated probable right of recovery on this provision;

(4) similarly, Galderma had not established a probable right of recovery under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act;

(5) since Galderma has only established a probable right of recovery on its claim that Brenner’s employment with his new employer violated the noncompete provisions of the PCA, injunctive relief must be confined to enforcing that provision;

(6) with respect to probable, imminent and irreparable harm, the court finds Galderma will suffer such an injury absent temporary injunctive relief as Brenner’s employment in his new capacity in the same market covered by his former position presents an ongoing and substantial risk that Galderma’s competitively sensitive information will inform his new employer’s strategic decision-making, causing Galderma’s immediate, imminent, and irreparable detriment; such an injury cannot be fully measured or compensated by money damages as confidential information cannot be unlearned and could have lasting consequences;

(7) with regard to the scope of the injunctive relief for the noncompete clause, the time set out in the agreement, 12 months, is reasonable;  the scope of the activity restrained  is also reasonable as the agreement only restricts Brenner from working in a narrow product-specific sector of the pharmaceutical/dermatology industries (hyaluronic acid dermal fillers), the one he was directly managing for Galderma; the geographic range of the noncompete provision is properly nationwide as the evidence showed Brenner’s responsibilities at Galderma were for the U.S. market and his covered territory was the U.S.; courts applying Section 15.50 have upheld nationwide restraints where the employer’s business was national in character and the employee’s responsibilities were commensurate in scope – that is the situation here, and a nationwide restriction is appropriately limited. The court rejects Galderma’s request for a world-wide restriction as the evidence does not show Brenner’s position at Galderma included such operational or managerial responsibilities;

(8) it is appropriate to reform the covenant to comply with these determinations in the following respects: (a) the language defining the types of “competitive activity” which is prohibited is overbroad as it covers more roles than Brenner performed at Galderma, and it should be limited to restrict services to those that are the same as or similar to those he performed during the period covered by the agreement; and (b) the restricted geographic area is overbroad. So, the court will reform the agreement to address these issues;

(9) the balance of the equities favors issuance of a temporary injunction; requiring Brenner to comply with bargained-for restrictions for a limited time preceding trial does not impose an undue hardship, and Texas has an interest in enforcing valid contractual obligations and protecting confidential business information  and fair competition.

The court then enters a temporary injunction covering the roles Brenner can fill with his new employer.