Opinion ID: 409265
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The distribution of Intermedics business cards by Cain in his former Medtronic territory;

Text: 68 2. Sales of Intermedics pacemakers by Benda and Cain to doctors or hospitals whom they had contacted in their last year with Medtronic, regardless of whether the hospitals at which the implantations were performed were located within their former Medtronic territories; 69 3. Attendance at surgeries in their former territories at which Intermedics pacemakers were implanted by Benda and Cain; 70 4. Benda's personal introduction of Conde to various individuals with whom Benda dealt in his last year with Medtronic; 71 5. Cain's arrangement of a product demonstration in his former Medtronic territory; 72 6. Conde's lunch and dinners with doctors whom he had contacted during his last year with Medtronic violated the non-competition agreement as follows: 73 a. Any meals which were paid for by Intermedics are conclusively presumed to have been for the purpose of diverting business, whether in the long term or short term; 74 b. Any discussion of the qualifications of either of Conde's co-defendants, who would be serving the doctor or hospital temporarily, constitutes attempts to divert business. 75 The above list of impermissible attempts to divert business is not exhaustive. While the court will not speculate as to hypothetical cases or prejudge whether or not certain activities might be found to be violative of the agreement, nevertheless, it should be noted that neither subtle nor explicit attempts to divert business are permitted under the agreement. Contact of a former customer, even to sell nonpacemaker products, may be construed as an attempt to divert business where the defendants' new employer sells directly competing pacemakers. Also, contact need not be initiated by one of the defendants in order to constitute an attempt to divert business. An attempt to divert business may consist of merely responding to a physician's request for information or assistance. To protect the public interest, medical emergencies, of course, are excluded from that proscription. 76 Non-competition agreements such as the one at issue here do not violate the First Amendment rights of the restricted parties, but are designed only to achieve the restriction of certain commercial speech for which the parties themselves had contracted. The court does not hold that the defendants may not communicate. Rather, it holds only that each of the defendants may not attempt to divert business from the plaintiff. Communication, per se, is restricted only insofar as it would violate the non-competition agreement agreed to by the parties.