Covidien LP v. Esch, 229 F. Supp. 3d 94

Brady Esch worked for Covidien (acquired VNUS) and signed a 2009 Non-Competition/Non‑Solicitation/Confidentiality Agreement (NNC) requiring disclosure and assignment of inventions made during employment or within one year after separation, and barring disclosure of Covidien confidential information.
Esch was terminated in November 2013 and signed a Separation Agreement that preserved the NNC’s disclosure/ownership and confidentiality obligations.
After leaving, Esch formed Vencióse, Inc., filed a 2014 provisional patent (61/970,498) and later related U.S. and PCT applications directed to a three‑wire catheter system, and recorded assignments of his patent rights to Vencióse.
Covidien sued (Nov. 2016) alleging breach of the NNC and Separation Agreement (among other claims) and moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Esch from using/disclosing Covidien confidential information and commercializing products based on the contested patent applications.
The district court found it had personal jurisdiction (forum clause in NNC) and granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining Esch from making/developing/manufacturing/selling products that disclose or use Covidien confidential information disclosed in the patent filings; it required Covidien to post a $312,000 bond.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court has personal jurisdiction over Esch	NNC contains forum/jurisdiction clause consenting to Massachusetts federal courts	NNC and forum clause void under California law; Separation Agreement negates carryover	Court: personal jurisdiction exists; forum clause binding and §4.d didn’t negate forum selection
Whether plaintiffs likely to succeed on contract claims (disclosure/assignment)	NNC/Separation require disclosure/assignment and bar use of Covidien confidential information; non‑disclosure clause enforceable/severable	Assignment clause unenforceable under CA; overbroad under MA; patent law presumption favors named inventor	Court: Plaintiff likely to succeed on breach claims as to non‑disclosure provisions; severability preserves confidentiality obligations
Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm	Public disclosure of confidential info in patent applications causes irreparable injury to Covidien’s EV product development	Delay in suing undermines irreparable‑harm claim (applications were public earlier)	Court: Irreparable harm found — disclosure itself is irreparable; timing did not defeat the claim
Balance of hardships & public interest	Injunction narrowly protects Covidien’s confidential info and investment; public interest supports enforcing contracts	Injunction would harm Esch and small company; non‑competes disfavored in CA	Court: Balance and public interest favor Covidien; injunction appropriate with bond

United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers of Am. v. 163 Pleasant St. Corp., 960 F.2d 1080 (1st Cir.) (existence of personal jurisdiction is prerequisite to injunction)
Optos, Inc. v. Topcon Med. Sys., Inc., 777 F. Supp. 2d 217 (D. Mass.) (non‑disclosure clauses severable and enforceable apart from noncompete provisions)
Jean v. Mass. State Police, 492 F.3d 24 (1st Cir.) (preliminary injunction factors summarized)
Coquico, Inc. v. Rodriguez‑Miranda, 562 F.3d 62 (1st Cir.) (likelihood of success is the weightiest factor in injunction analysis)
Rohm & Haas Elec. Materials, LLC v. Elec. Circuits, 759 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D. Mass.) (court may accept well‑pleaded allegations and uncontroverted affidavits in injunction context)
Asseo v. Pan Am. Grain Co., Inc., 805 F.2d 23 (1st Cir.) (court may consider hearsay and otherwise inadmissible evidence on preliminary injunction)
Peoples Fed. Sav. Bank v. People’s United Bank, 672 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy)
HSBC Realty Credit Corp. (USA) v. O’Neill, 745 F.3d 564 (1st Cir.) (reliance on alleged misrepresentations that contradict contract terms can be unreasonable as a matter of law)
K‑Mart Corp. v. Oriental Plaza, Inc., 875 F.2d 907 (1st Cir.) (laches is equitable defense reviewed under court’s discretion)
Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. E. Airlines, Inc., 925 F.2d 6 (1st Cir.) (district court has substantial discretion under Rule 65(c) to set security for injunction)