Boston Scientific Corp. v. Duberg
754 F. Supp. 2d 1033
D. Minnesota2010Background
- Duberg, a medical device sales representative for Guidant Sales Corporation (a Boston Scientific subsidiary) since 2006, signed a 2008 noncompete superseding prior terms.
- The 2008 noncompete applies for 365 days after termination and broadly prohibits involvement with Competitive Products for Boston Scientific Accounts, defined by prior sales activity.
- A Competitive Product includes CPI devices like cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators; ILRs are not CPI products, but the restriction extends to “supporting the sale” and other involvement.
- Duberg resigned on May 27, 2010 to join Medtronic and began selling CRM devices and ILRs for Medtronic, including at restricted accounts.
- Boston Scientific alleges Duberg continued to contact restricted accounts and engage in activities that violate the noncompete, including ILR sales and CRM-related conduct, prompting this motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting further activities proscribed by the noncompete for one year from May 27, 2010, pending further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duberg violated the noncompete by selling or supporting competitive products | Boston Scientific: Duberg breached by selling/supporting both CRM devices and ILRs at restricted accounts | Duberg/Medtronic: ILRs are not Competitive Products and the noncompete does not bar ILR sales | Yes, likelihood of breach exists |
| Whether Boston Scientific has shown irreparable harm from the breach | Boston Scientific: loss of goodwill and customer relationships irreparably harms the company | No irreparable harm beyond monetary damages | Yes, irreparable harm shown |
| Whether the balance of harms and public interest support injunctive relief | Injunctive relief protects legitimate business interests and goodwill | Relief imposes hardship on Duberg without sufficient countervailing harm | Balance favors injunction; public interest supports enforcement of valid noncompetes |
Key Cases Cited
- Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981) (four-factor test for preliminary injunctions; burden on movant)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (standard governing preliminary injunctions; likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Prow v. Medtronic, Inc., 770 F.2d 117 (8th Cir. 1985) (reasonableness of noncompete factors; consideration and scope)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Gibbons, 527 F. Supp. 1085 (D. Minn. 1981) (noncompete enforceability in medical device context)
- Kallok v. Medtronic, Inc., 573 N.W.2d 356 (Minn. 1998) (reasonableness and scope of noncompete in Minnesota law)