St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. v. Biosense Webster, Inc., No. 14-3886 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseSt. Jude filed suit against Jose B. de Castro and Biosense, alleging state law claims of breach of contract and tortious interference. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that the Minnesota choice-of-law provision in St. Jude's employment agreement with de Castro is valid because the parties acted in good faith and without the intent to evade the law; the district court correctly concluded that St. Jude's term-of-years employment agreement with de Castro is valid and enforceable under Minnesota law and that Biosense was liable for tortuously interfering with that agreement; the district court correctly concluded that St. Jude could recover damages for lost profits based on Biosense's tortious interference; and the district court correctly determined that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Biosense caused St. Jude to lose profits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. In action alleging defendant deCastro breached his employment contract by going to work for Biosense, plaintiff's direct competitor, the Minnesota choice-of-law provision in deCastro's employment contract was valid, as it was entered into in good faith and without an intent to evade the law; the fact that the provision was not negotiated does not negate its validity; the employment agreement between plaintiff and deCastro was a valid term-of-years employment and was not a restrictive covenant, as it was limited in time and was enforceable by damages only; the district court did not err in finding Biosense was liable for tortuously interfering with the contract; plaintiff could recover damages for lost profits based on the tortious interference, and the evidence was sufficient to support the lost-profit damages award.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.