The North Carolina Business Court recently ruled in favor of Aclarity Genomics Inc. and its founder Jason A.A. West in a legal dispute with BioSkryb Genomics, Inc. The court's decision, issued on June 8, 2026, determined that BioSkryb violated California law regarding non-solicitation agreements. This ruling has significant implications for employment contracts and business practices in the biotechnology sector.
BioSkryb Genomics, a biotechnology firm based in North Carolina, had sued West and his new company, Aclarity Genomics, for allegedly breaching contractual obligations after West left BioSkryb. The case revolves around the enforceability of non-solicitation clauses in employment agreements, which restrict former employees from soliciting customers or employees of their previous employer.
The dispute began after West, one of BioSkryb's founders and an officer until 2024, formed Aclarity Genomics shortly after leaving BioSkryb. BioSkryb claimed that West took trade secrets and confidential information to establish Aclarity as a competitor. The company filed a lawsuit in early 2025, asserting several claims, including breach of contract. However, BioSkryb later dismissed its claims without prejudice, leaving West's counterclaim as the only remaining issue.
West's counterclaim argued that the non-solicitation restrictions in his employment contracts were unenforceable under California law, specifically citing California Business & Professions Code § 16600.5. This law states that contracts restraining individuals from engaging in lawful professions are void, and attempting to enforce such contracts constitutes a civil violation.
In the court's opinion, Judge Adam M. Conrad ruled that the choice-of-law clauses in the contracts, which specified California law, were enforceable. The judge noted, "The undisputed facts show that BioSkryb and West had a reasonable basis for choosing California law to govern the contracts at issue." The court found that applying California law would not violate North Carolina's public policy.
As a result, the court determined that BioSkryb's attempts to enforce the non-solicitation restrictions were unlawful under California law, leading to West's victory on the counterclaim. The court stated, "BioSkryb does not dispute that it attempted to enforce these void restrictions, as prohibited by section 16600.5."
This ruling is significant for several reasons. First, it reinforces the enforceability of choice-of-law clauses in employment contracts, particularly when companies operate across state lines. It also highlights the limitations of non-solicitation agreements, especially in states like California that have strict laws against such restrictions.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the parties involved. Businesses in North Carolina and beyond may need to reevaluate their employment contracts and consider the implications of California law when drafting non-solicitation agreements. This case could set a precedent for how courts handle similar disputes in the future, particularly in the rapidly evolving biotechnology industry.
Looking ahead, the court's ruling allows West to pursue damages and attorney's fees as a result of BioSkryb's violations. The parties have been ordered to confer and file a status report regarding the outstanding issues related to West's claims for damages by June 22, 2026. The outcome of this case may influence other companies and their practices regarding employee contracts and competitive practices.
In conclusion, the North Carolina Business Court's ruling in favor of Aclarity Genomics and Jason A.A. West marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing conversation about employment law and business practices. The decision underscores the importance of understanding the legal landscape surrounding employment agreements, especially in industries where competition is fierce.