Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Bionics Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that, even if the employee did not confiscate internal company documents, “the knowledge he gained while working with Medtronic’s customers gives him insight into customer preferences”
• stating that restrictive covenants are enforced to the extent reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests, which include the “company’s good will, trade secrets, and 9 confidential information”
• declining to enforce first-filed rule when one party filed declaratory judgment action in another jurisdiction to preempt imminent action for damages or injunctive relief by “natural plaintiff’
• finding a conflict between Minnesota’s law disfavoring, but allowing in certain circumstances, non-compete agreements and California law making the non-compete agreement likely unenforceable
• finding a conflict between Minnesota’s law disfavoring, but allowing in certain circumstances, non-compete agreements and California law making the non-compete agreement likely unenforceable
• finding a conflict between Minnesota’s law disfavoring, but allowing in certain circumstances, non-compete agreements and California law making the non-compete agreement likely unenforceable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).