Posts tagged "Scientific"

Boston Scientific Corporation v. Takahashi, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-060-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS   SUFFOLK, so                                                                                            SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION 2017-02976 BLS 2     BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff   vs.   LYNN TAKAHASHI, GENE ZIGRA, JONATHAN OLSEN, and NUVECTRA CORPORATION Defendants   MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS   This is an action against three former employees of the plaintiff Boston Scientific Corporation (Boston Scientific) and their current employer, the  Nuvectra Corporation (Nuvectra) alleging misappropriation of confidential information and violations of a nonsolicitation clause in the individual defendants’ employment agreements with plaintiff.  Each  of those agreements contains clauses designating Massachusetts as the forum and Massachusetts law as the governing law for any legal disputes arising from the agreements.  The defendants now move to dismiss the action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.   This Court concludes that the Motion must be Denied. In support of their Motion, the defendants point out that at all relevant times, the former employees worked and resided in California.  Before their departure in September of this year, they worked for Boston Scientific’s sale team in the Los Angeles area; they currently work for Nuvectra, a competitor of Boston Scientific, as part of its sales team in the same geographical region.  Relying on G.L.c. 223 § 5A, the defendants argue that “the interest of substantial justice” supports dismissal of this action because the balance of private and public concerns favor a California forum.  Gianocostas v. Interface Grp.-Massachusetts Inc., 450 Mass. 715, 723 (2008).   In particular, they argue that  California’s strong policy against the enforcement of restrictive covenants suggests that this case is best decided in a California forum.  This Court is not convinced. The doctrine of forum non conveniens   “leaves much to the discretion of the court to which plaintiff’s resorts…”  Gulf Oil Corp., v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947) (outlining the public and private concerns a court should consider in applying the doctrine).  However, this Court must exercise that discretion keeping in mind that there is a strong presumption in favor of plaintiff’s choice of forum.  “Assuming jurisdiction and venue are proper, dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens will rarely be granted; ‘unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.’” Kearsarge Metallurgical Corp. v. Peerless Ins. Co., 383 Mass. 162 , 169 (1981) (footnote omitted), quoting from New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Estes, 353 Mass. 90 , 95 (1967). See also Joly v. Albert Larocque Lumber, Ltd., 397 Mass. 43 (1986).   In the instant case, the defendants face an additional  hurdle in convincing this Court that dismissal is warranted in that each of the employment agreements designates Massachusetts as an appropriate forum.  Indeed, in one of […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 9, 2018 at 1:02 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Boston Scientific Corporation v. Takaahashi, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-012-17)

1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, so SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 2017-02976 BLS 2 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff vs. LYNN TAKAAHASHI, GENE ZIGRA, JONATHAN OLSEN, And NUVECTRA CORPRATION Defendants MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION This is an action against three former employees of the plaintiff Boston Scientific Corporation (Boston Scientific) and their current employer, the defendant Nuvectra Corporation. The three individual defendants all reside in California and performed work for Boston Scientific in California until they resigned from the company on September 7, 2017. Boston Scientific alleges that upon their departure, the three took with them proprietary information relating to customer pricing and solicited least one Boston Scientific employee to join them at Nuvectra. Boston Scientific now seeks a court order prohibiting the employees from using or disclosing this information or from soliciting any other Boston Scientific employees. The request also seeks to prevent the individuals from doing any work for Nuvectra for some undefined period of time while an “accounting” is done of the information they allegedly took, even though their employment agreements with Boston Scientific do not include any provisions preventing them from working for a competitor or from soliciting Boston Scientific customers. In connection with this request, the Court has considered various affidavits, including those of the three employees who specifically deny taking any confidential information. This 2 Court has also considered the fact that Nuvectra itself took certain steps in advance of any litigation to ensure that the individuals returned all electronic devices they used while working at Boston Scientific, and has temporarily sidelined (or “benched”) them during this process. Based on these submissions as well as the memoranda and arguments of the parties, this Court concludes that the plaintiff has not demonstrated that it has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, or that it would suffer any irreparable harm if the injunction did not issue. Packaging Industries v. Cheney, 380 Mass. 609, 616, 617 (1980). Of particular importance to the Court’s conclusion is the following: 1. The information that Boston Scientific alleges was wrongfully taken were Product Billing Forms, which contain serial numbers of the products sold together with their price. In order for a nondisclosure agreement to be enforceable, the information it protects must be confidential, however. See Dynamic Research Corp. v. Analytic Scis. Corp., 9 Mass.App.Ct. 254, 278 (1980). Conceding that the forms contain no trade secrets, Boston Scientifics argues that they are nevertheless worthy of protection because they include “pricing packages” that are customized to meet the needs of its individual customers. Clearly, this pricing information has been shared with each customer, however, since the forms are generated in order to bill the customer; […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 5, 2017 at 5:48 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,

Albright v. Boston Scientific Corporation (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-123-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   15-P-633                                        Appeals Court   DIANE ALBRIGHT  vs.  BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION.[1]     No. 15-P-633.   Middlesex.     April 15, 2016. – September 13, 2016.   Present:  Cypher, Katzmann, & Massing, JJ.     Conflict of Laws.  Negligence, Defective product, Design, Adequacy of warning, Duty to warn.  Evidence, Relevancy and materiality, Rebuttal, Bias.  Error, Harmless.  Practice, Civil, Instructions to jury.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 8, 2012.   The case was tried before Diane M. Kottmyer, J.     Jonathan D. Orent (Dennis A. Costigan with him) for the plaintiff. Robert T. Adams, of Missouri (Susan M. Donnelly Murphy with him) for the defendant.     KATZMANN, J.  The plaintiff Diane Albright, an Ohio resident, brought this action in the Superior Court against defendant Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC), a Massachusetts-based company, seeking damages for injuries that she sustained after having BSC’s “Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair” kit (Pinnacle device) surgically implanted to treat her pelvic organ prolapse (POP) condition.[2]  BSC designed, manufactured, and marketed the Pinnacle device and sold it to the Ohio hospital where Albright’s surgery took place.  After a three-week trial, a jury found for BSC on Albright’s claims of defective design and inadequate warning. On appeal, Albright challenges the exclusion of the medical application caution (caution) contained within the 2004 material safety data sheet (MSDS)[3] that had been provided to BSC by its supplier of the polypropylene material used to fabricate the mesh in the Pinnacle device.  Albright offered the caution for the limited purpose of showing notice and knowledge on the part of BSC.  Albright also claims error from the exclusion of two letters that the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent to BSC in 2012.[4]  We conclude that, in the context of the case as it unfolded at trial, it was prejudicial error to exclude the proffered caution and FDA letters.  The judgment in favor of BSC shall therefore be vacated and the case remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial. Background.  There was evidence from which the jury could have found the following.[5] Surgeries.  In 2008, Albright had surgery to treat POP symptoms involving her bladder.  Dr. Jay Meyer performed a procedure[6] that did not involve the implantation of surgical mesh.  Less than twelve months later, Albright experienced a recurrence of the bulging sensation in her […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 13, 2016 at 4:37 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,