Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
-------------------------------------------------------------- x
:
HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., a New :
Jersey Corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of :
STRYKER CORP., :
: COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
Plaintiff, : RELIEF AND OTHER RELIEF
:
- against - :
:
BIOMET SOUTH TEXAS, INC., a Texas :
Corporation; ZIMMER U.S., INC. d/b/a ZIMMER :
BIOMET, a Delaware Corporation; and BIOMET :
ORTHOPEDICS, LLC, an Indiana Limited :
Liability Company, :
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------- x
Corporation (hereinafter Stryker), for its Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Other Relief
against Defendants BIOMET SOUTH TEXAS, INC. (Biomet South Texas); ZIMMER U.S.,
INC. d/b/a ZIMMER BIOMET (Zimmer Biomet); and BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS, LLC
1. This action arises out of the concerted and deliberate unfair competition, improper
use of Strykers confidential and trade secret information, and improper solicitations of Strykers
Defendant Biomet South Texas, acting on behalf of Defendant Zimmer Biomet, solicited
multiple Stryker sales representatives operating in the Houston area to breach their employment
agreements with Stryker and its affiliates. Defendants solicited those employees in an effort to
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 2 of 26
set up a competing foot and ankle business targeting, amongst others, Houston-area podiatrists
and fellowship trained foot and ankle surgeons (collectively, the F&A Surgeons) who were
longstanding Stryker customers before Defendants improper acts. Toward that end, Defendants
specifically targeted several Stryker sales representatives in the Houston area and, in direct
sales representatives to breach their non-compete and non-solicitation agreements with Stryker
by having them solicit the very same customers which they previously serviced as employees of
Stryker. The former Stryker employees whom Defendants solicited are now moving the business
of those Stryker customers to Defendants and utilizing Stryker confidential and trade secret
information.
2. Stryker brings this action to stop the unauthorized use of its confidential and
proprietary information, interference with its long-standing customer relationships, and the
implants, instruments, and other orthopaedic products and services, including its highly
successful Foot & Ankle business unit. Strykers sales representatives have access to and
information regarding its products, marketing, pricing, distribution and sales strategiesas well
4. Prior to performing their job responsibilities and duties for Stryker or any of its
Strykers sales representatives agree not to solicit Stryker customers which they service during
2
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 3 of 26
their employment with Stryker for one year following the termination of their Stryker
employment, agree not to disclose Strykers or confidential information and trade secrets, and
agree that, during the course of their employment and for one year after the termination of their
employment with Stryker, they will not solicit Stryker employees to leave Strykers employ.
Defendants were well aware of these reasonable restrictions and post-employment obligations
together as Stryker Foot & Ankle sales representatives in the Houston, Texas area. After their
separation from employment at Stryker, both Ruggles and Combs began working at Biomet
South Texas within a matter of weeks, selling competing foot and ankle products to their former
Stryker customers.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendants solicited Ruggles and Combs to breach
their Stryker agreements by working for Defendants selling competing foot and ankle products.
present, Ruggles and Combs met with and solicited the same F&A Surgeons whom they serviced
on behalf of Stryker, and attempted to convince those surgeons to purchase competing Zimmer
Biomet and/or Biomet Orthopedics foot and ankle products. Email communications with hospital
staff confirm Ruggles and Combs activities. All of Ruggles and Combs wrongful activity was
wrongful actions by assuring Stryker that it would have Ruggles and Combs abide by their
Stryker agreements while instructing them to do otherwise and, on at least one occasion,
instructed Ruggles to sign into outpatient surgical centers under the names of other Biomet South
Texas employees.
3
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 4 of 26
correspondence to Ruggles and Combs reminding them of their contractual obligations. While
neither Ruggles nor Combs responded to Stryker, counsel for Defendants responded to Stryker
with assurances that Defendants would see to it that both Ruggles and Combs would abide by the
terms of their agreements with Stryker, and specifically the prohibition on soliciting their former
Stryker customers.
and/or knowingly allowed Ruggles and Combs to breach their Stryker agreements and solicit the
10. Defendants are conspiring with Ruggles and Combs to interfere with Strykers
customer relationships by setting up meetings with F&A Surgeons whom Ruggles and Combs
serviced on behalf of Stryker, and by directing Ruggles and Combs to solicit those F&A
11. Based on Defendants actions, Stryker has lost tens of thousands of dollars of
business in the last month of 2016 alone, and stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars of
business in 2017.
12. Stryker seeks damages arising out of (a) revenues lost to Defendants as a result of
Defendants wrongful conduct and (b) harm to Strykers goodwill and business reputation
through Defendants raiding of Strykers work force, Defendants unfair competition, and
to protect Strykers business, its customer relationships, its goodwill and its confidential and
4
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 5 of 26
trade secret information, and to curtail the financial damage already caused by Defendants
actions.
PARTIES
Corporation, and is organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its
15. Biomet South Texas, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Texas, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas.
16. Zimmer U.S., Inc. d/b/a Zimmer Biomet is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana.
Zimmer Biomet is the manufacturer of medical devices distributed by Defendant Biomet South
Texas.
17. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Indiana, with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana.
South Texas.
18. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1332
because the parties are citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds
19. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, and venue is proper in
this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). Defendant Biomet South Texas resides is headquartered
and resides in this district, all Defendants committed tortious acts and conduct business within
5
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 6 of 26
this district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Strykers claims occurred in this
district.
Strykers Business
20. Stryker invents, designs, manufactures and sells a full range of medical devices
and surgical products, including specifically foot and ankle surgical products. These products
make foot and ankle surgeries and recoveries simpler, faster and more effective. Strykers
portfolio of products, including, inter alia, plating systems, screw systems, implants,
intramedulary nails, external fixation products, and biologics, focuses on procedural and product
innovations.
21. The foot and ankle products industry is highly competitive. Strykers direct
competitors include Zimmer Biomet and Biomet Orthopedics. Defendant Biomet South Texas is
Defendants Zimmer Biomet and Biomet Orthopedics distributor covering the Houston, Texas
area. Defendant Biomet South Texas represents both Zimmer Biomet and Biomet Orthopedics.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Biomet South Texas requires its employees to sign
employment agreements which protect the confidential information and interests of Zimmer
22. Although the foot and ankle implant industry is highly competitive, Stryker and
its products have broad appeal and acceptance in the marketplace and among the foot and ankle
podiatry and foot and ankle surgery communities. Stryker is dedicated to the continual
23. To sell its products, Stryker relies heavily on its sales representatives and the
relationships they cultivate on Strykers behalf with the surgeons and hospitals in their respective
6
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 7 of 26
specifications, coordinate training for surgeons utilizing its products, and are frequently present
during surgical procedures to provide technical assistance and knowledge to the surgeons and
medical staff. As a result, sales representatives become the face of Stryker to its customers.
24. Stryker dedicates a significant amount of time and resources cultivating its
customer relationships and creating goodwill amongst its customers by, among other things,
providing a high level of customer service and offering them continual training on Strykers state
with Stryker based, in part, on the specific technical information and training required to utilize a
companys foot and ankle products and the familiarity that accompanies repeated use of specific
Stryker products.
26. For certain products and when contemplating a switch to a new product
manufacturerincluding external fixation products, used by many of Strykers foot and ankle
customersa surgeon must have training and a high level of comfort and familiarity with the
27. Ruggles employment with Stryker began on or about March 1, 2011. At the time
of his hire, he was employed as an Extremity sales representative. On or about September 15,
2015, Ruggles was reassigned as a Specialist sales representative, and on or about January 1,
2016, Ruggles was reassigned as a Foot & Ankle Specialist sales representative for the South
28. Combs employment with Stryker began on or about September 7, 2010. At the
7
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 8 of 26
department. Combs was reassigned as a Specialist sales representative in 2013 and resigned from
Stryker on or about July 11, 2014. On or about July 18, 2016, Combs was rehired as a Foot &
Ankle sales representative for the South Central Texas market, with an emphasis on the Houston,
Texas area.
29. Stryker invested significant time and resources in training and developing
Ruggles and Combs as Foot & Ankle sales representatives. As a function of their positions,
Ruggles and Combs were given access to Strykers confidential and proprietary information,
including Strykers information regarding its products, marketing, pricing, distribution and sales
strategies. Stryker also entrusted Ruggles and Combs with Strykers highly valuable customer
relationships.
30. Throughout their employment with Stryker, Stryker entrusted Ruggles and Combs
with and provided them access to the F&A Surgeons performing foot and ankle procedures in
31. Throughout their employment, Stryker introduced Ruggles and Combs to F&A
Surgeons and facilitated their ability to develop business relationships with such F&A Surgeons
on behalf of Stryker. Stryker likewise aided and assisted Ruggles and Combs exposure to and
development of, on Strykers behalf, further confidential information regarding these F&A
Surgeons.
32. At the time of their respective departures from Stryker, Ruggles and Combs were
established and valuable customers. Strykers relationship with these customers generated
8
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 9 of 26
Agreement). A true and correct copy of the Ruggles Confidentiality Agreement, executed on
February 28, 2011, is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. Both the Ruggles Confidentiality
Agreement and Ruggles Non-Competition Agreement were between Stryker Corporation and
Ruggles, but included any subsidiary of Stryker Corporation, including Stryker, in the definition
Agreement at 1.1).)
34. Based on the terms of the Ruggles Confidentiality Agreement and the Ruggles
access to and receipt of Strykers trade secrets and confidential information, and other
35. If Ruggles failed to execute either the Ruggles Confidentiality Agreement or the
Ruggles Non-Competition Agreement, his offer of employment would have been rescinded.
36. Ruggles agreed, both during the course of his employment with Stryker and
includes:
[K]now-how, trade secrets, and technical, business and financial information and
any other non-public information in any way learned by [Ruggles] during [his]
employment with Stryker, including, but not limited to (a) prices, renewal dates
and other detailed terms of customer or supplier contracts and proposals; (b)
information concerning Strykers customers, clients, referral sources and vendors,
9
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 10 of 26
and potential customers, clients, referral sources and vendors, including, but not
limited to, names of these entities or his employees or representatives,
preferences, needs or requirements, purchasing or sales histories, or other
customer or client-specific information; (c) supplier and distributor lists; (d)
pricing policies, methods of delivering services and products, and marketing and
sales plans or strategies; (e) products, product know-how, product technology
and product development strategies and plan; (f) employees, personnel or payroll
records or information; (g) forecasts, budgets and other non-public financial
information; (h) expansion plans, management policies and other business
strategies; (i) inventions, research, development, manufacturing, purchasing,
finance processes, technologies, machines, computer software, computer
hardware, automated systems, engineering, marketing, merchandising, and
selling.
supplied to him to assist him in his duties as a Stryker employee. (Id. at 1.2).
39. Ruggles agreed that, both during and after his employment with Stryker, he would
not disclose, use, disseminate, identify by topic or subject, lecture upon or publish [Strykers]
contain narrowly tailored post-employment restrictive covenants, which are designed to protect
During [his] employment with Stryker and for a period of twelve (12) months
after the termination of [his] employment with Stryker for any reason, [he would]
not work (as an employee, consultant, contractor, agent, or otherwise) for, or
render services directly or indirectly, any Conflicting Organization in which the
services [he] may provide could enhance the use or marketability of a Conflicting
Product or Service by application of Confidential Information which [he had]
access to during [his] employment.
10
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 11 of 26
competition with Stryker was limited to the geographic area where he provided services on
behalf of Stryker in the twenty-four months prior to his termination. (Id. at 4(b)).
43. Ruggles further agreed that, during his employment and for a period of twelve
(12) months following the termination of his employment, he would not solicit, attempt to solicit,
induce or influence, or assist another to solicit, induce, or influence certain Stryker customers to
44. Ruggles also agreed that, during his employment and for a period of 12 months
thereafter, he would not solicit, induce or influence, or assist another to solicit, induce, or
45. Moreover, Ruggles agreed that all of the obligations discussed above were
at 6.5).
Non-Solicitation Agreement (the Combs Agreement). A true and correct copy of the Combs
Ruggles Agreements, the Combs Agreement included any subsidiary of Stryker Corporation,
47. Based on the terms of the Combs Agreement, Combs received an offer of
employment as a Foot & Ankle sales representative, continued employment, access to and
11
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 12 of 26
receipt of Strykers trade secrets and confidential information, and other compensation and
48. Based on the terms of the Combs Agreement, Combs received continued
employment, access to and receipt of Strykers trade secrets and confidential information, and
access to Strykers customers, in exchange for his execution of the Combs Agreement.
49. If Combs had failed to execute the Combs Agreement he would not have been
50. The Combs Agreement defines such information that constitutes Confidential
Information as:
Know-how, trade secrets, and technical, business and financial information and
any other non-public information in any way learned by [Combs] during [his]
employment with Stryker, including, but not limited to (a) prices, renewal dates
and other detailed terms of customer or supplier contracts and proposals; (b)
information concerning Strykers customers, clients, referral sources and vendors,
and potential customers, clients, referral sources and vendors, including, but not
limited to, names of these entitles or their employees or representatives,
preferences, needs or requirements, purchasing or sales histories, or other
customer or client-specific information; (c) supplier and distributor lists; (d)
pricing policies, methods of delivering services and products, and marketing and
sales plans or strategies; (e) products, product know-how, product technology and
product development strategies and plans; (f) employees, personnel or payroll
records or information; (g) forecasts, budgets and other non-public financial
information; (h) expansion plans, management policies and other business
strategies; (i) inventions, research, development, manufacturing, purchasing,
finance processes, technologies, machines, computer software, computer
hardware, automated systems, engineering, marketing, merchandising, and
selling. Confidential Information shall not include information that is or becomes
part of the public domain, such that it is readily available to the public, through no
fault of [his].
12
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 13 of 26
(Id. at 5.1).
Combs Agreement contains narrowly tailored post-employment restrictive covenants, which are
53. Specifically, Combs agreed that during the course of his employment with Stryker
and for one year after the termination of his employment for any reason, he would not:
[I]n any capacity, directly or indirectly, personally or through another person, (i)
solicit, contact or sell any Conflicting Product or Service to a Stryker Customer;
(ii) solicit, contact or sell any product or service to a Stryker Customer that
competes with or is similar to any Stryker product or service; (iii) divert, entice or
otherwise take away from Stryker the business or patronage of any Stryker
Customer; or (iv) solicit or induce any vendor, supplier or Stryker Customer to
terminate or reduce its relationship with Stryker.
(Id. at 6.2).
mean:
(Id. at 2.3).
55. Also contained within the Combs Agreement is a non-compete provision, which
states:
13
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 14 of 26
During my employment with Stryker and for a period of twelve (12) months after
the termination of my employment with Stryker for any reason, I will not work
(as an employee, consultant, contractor, agent, or otherwise) for, or render
services directly or indirectly to, any Conflicting Organization in which the
services I may provide could enhance the use or marketability of a Conflicting
Product or Service by application of Confidential Information which I have had
access to during my employment.
(Id. at 6.3(a)).
57. Under the terms of the Combs Agreement, Combs restriction on competition
with Stryker was limited to the geographic area where he provided services on behalf of Stryker
reasonable and necessary for the protection of the goodwill and continued
business of Stryker that [he] abide by the covenants and agreements contained in
th[e] Agreement during and following [his] employment with Stryker and that
Stryker will suffer irreparable injury, loss, harm and damage if [he] engage[s] in
conduct prohibited in [his] Agreement.
(Id. at 7.5).
59. On or about November 14, 2016, Ruggles employment with Stryker terminated.
60. Just four days after Ruggles Stryker employment terminated, on November 18,
61. Soon after the end of their respective employment at Stryker, Stryker received
information that Ruggles and Combs were working together for Defendant Biomet South Texas
together, using joint efforts to solicit their former Stryker customers in the Houston area.
14
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 15 of 26
62. Defendant Biomet South Texas, at all times relevant to this matter, acted as the
authorized agent of both Defendant Zimmer Biomet and Defendant Biomet Orthopedics.
Defendant Biomet South Texas, on information and belief, employs other former Stryker sales
63. Upon information and belief, Ruggles first became employed by Biomet South
Texas and then, acting on behalf of Defendants, solicited Combs to resign from Stryker and join
64. Pursuant to their Stryker Agreements, both Ruggles and Combs were obligated to
inform Stryker if they accepted employment at a competing business during the period of their
non-competition obligations. Neither Ruggles nor Combs ever provided Stryker with such
notice.
65. In early December 2016, Stryker discovered that Ruggles and Combs were
violating their Agreements with Stryker on behalf of Defendants by soliciting their former
66. Specifically, on or about December 12, 2016, Ruggles met with an F&A Surgeon
whom he formerly serviced for Stryker. During that meeting, Ruggles promoted the sale of
67. Also on December 12, 2016, Ruggles reached out to a purchasing coordinator at a
surgical center within his former Stryker sales territory. Ruggles attempted to set up an in-person
meeting to discuss setting up accounts to sell competing Zimmer Biomet products to F&A
15
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 16 of 26
68. Ruggles copied Combs, at his new Biomet South Texas email address, on his
69. On December 12, 2016, Ruggles reached out to a different F&A Surgeon whom
he formerly serviced on behalf of Stryker and attempted to solicit that F&A Surgeon to purchase
70. On December 29, 2016, Ruggles met with yet another F&A Surgeon whom he
formerly serviced on behalf of Stryker and attempted to solicit that F&A Surgeon to purchase
71. On January 4, 2017, Combs met with an F&A Surgeon whom he formerly
serviced on behalf of Stryker and attempted to solicit that F&A Surgeon to purchase competing
72. Throughout late December 2016 and January 2017, Stryker employees witnessed
Ruggles and Combs dropping off Zimmer Biomet products at surgical facilities within their
former Stryker sales territories. On at least one occasion, Ruggles signed into those surgical
centers under the name of another Biomet South Texas representative, in an effort to conceal his
73. In January of 2017, at least seven (7) different F&A Surgeons whom Ruggles and
Combs previously serviced on behalf of Stryker submitted purchase orders for competing
Zimmer Biomet products. During that same time frame, Stryker employees witnessed Ruggles
and Combs entering and leaving the surgical facilities where those F&A Surgeons perform
procedures.
74. After learning of their breaches of their Stryker contractual obligations, Stryker
sent correspondence to Ruggles and Combs demanding that they comply with the terms of their
16
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 17 of 26
Stryker Agreements. Counsel for Defendants responded on January 20, 2017, stating that
Defendants intended to restrict Ruggles activities in the Houston area so that he would not be in
76. On or about February 6, 2017, Stryker learned that one of Ruggles former
Stryker customers attempted to send him order forms for medical products purchased through
Cayenne Medical.
77. Cayenne Medical is a foot and ankle medical device manufacturer which was
78. On February 15, 2017, Stryker sales representatives witnessed Combs entering
two separate Houston-area hospitals located in his former Stryker sales territory.
79. On February 15, 2017, Stryker discovered that several of the F&A Surgeons
serviced by Ruggles and Combs on behalf of Stryker submitted thousands of dollars worth of
80. Upon information and belief, Ruggles and Combs are directing their former
Stryker customers to submit purchase orders through other sales representatives employed by
81. Stryker recently discovered that several other F&A Surgeons whom Ruggles and
Combs formerly serviced on behalf of Stryker are now purchasing and using competing Zimmer
17
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 18 of 26
planning a joint open house with a Houston-area F&A Surgeon in an effort to divert yet more
83. With the departure of Ruggles and Combs and their knowledge of Strykers
customers in the Houston market to Defendants, Stryker stands to lose several million dollars in
business and the loss of value of its goodwill, customer relationships, trade secrets and
84. Defendants are tortiously interfering with Strykers contracts with its former
employees, raiding Strykers work force in the Houston area, unfairly competing against Stryker,
and interfering with its business relationships with both its longstanding and prospective
customers.
85. Defendants will have (and have gained) an unfair advantage in targeting Strykers
customers and developing marketing plans and strategies based on Strykers successes and
86. Defendants activities have resulted in Stryker losing actual business exceeding
87. All told, Defendants are causing, threatening, and/or will continue to cause or
threaten significant irreparable harm to Stryker, including the loss of value of confidential and/or
well as damage to Strykers reputation as an industry leader and its ability to successfully market
its goods and services. Money alone cannot make Stryker whole.
18
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 19 of 26
COUNT I
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
(All Defendants)
88. Stryker hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
89. At all relevant times, Ruggles and Combs were parties to Agreements with
Stryker which, inter alia, prohibited them from engaging or participating in any activity that is
90. At all relevant times, Ruggles and Combs were parties to Agreements with
Stryker which, inter alia, prohibited them from soliciting Strykers customers or prospective
customers and further prohibited them from using or disclosing Strykers confidential
91. At all relevant times, Defendants were aware, or should have been aware, of these
92. Despite knowing about the Agreements, Defendants induced, instructed and/or
knowingly permitted Ruggles and Combs to solicit Strykers customers to stop doing business
93. Defendants were not justified in interfering with Ruggles or Combs Agreements
with Stryker.
Strykers contractual relationships with Ruggles and Combs, Stryker has been damaged in an
95. Stryker has been irreparably injured and it continues to face irreparable injury.
Stryker is threatened with losing the value of its confidential and proprietary information and
19
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 20 of 26
certain customer relationships, along with income and goodwill, for which a remedy at law is
inadequate.
96. Accordingly, the Defendants must be enjoined and restrained by Order of this
Court.
COUNT II
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE:
STRYKERS CUSTOMERS
(All Defendants)
98. Stryker hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
99. Until the events giving rise to this action, Stryker had reasonable prospective
economic advantages with its customers and/or prospective customers. Stryker reasonably
expected that these economic advantages would continue and would not be unjustifiably
disrupted.
virtue of Ruggles and Combs employment with Stryker, as well as other former Stryker sales
representatives. Because Defendants are competitors of Stryker, they were and remain aware of
reasonable prospective economic advantages with its existing and/or prospective customers by
20
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 21 of 26
instructing, directing, and allowing Ruggles and Combs to violate their Stryker Agreements and
prospective economic advantages with its customers and/or prospective customers, Stryker has
103. Stryker has been irreparably injured and it continues to face irreparable injury.
Stryker is threatened with losing the value of its confidential and proprietary information and
certain reasonable prospective economic advantages, along with income and goodwill, for which
104. Accordingly, the Defendants must be enjoined and restrained by Order of this
Court. In addition to a remedy at equity, Stryker seeks actual, incidental, compensatory, punitive,
COUNT III
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS: STRYKERS
CUSTOMERS
(All Defendants)
105. Stryker hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
106. Until the events giving rise to this action, Stryker had longstanding business
relations with its customers, including the F&A Surgeons in the Houston area serviced by
Ruggles and Combs. Stryker reasonably expected that these business relations would continue
Ruggles and Combs employment at Stryker and their exposure to Strykers confidential
21
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 22 of 26
relations with its customers by instructing, directing, and allowing Ruggles and Combs to violate
their Stryker Agreements and solicit Strykers longstanding customers in order to move their
business to Defendants.
with its customers and/or prospective customers, Stryker has been damaged in an amount well in
excess of $75,000.
110. Stryker has been irreparably injured and it continues to face irreparable injury.
Stryker is threatened with losing the value of its confidential and proprietary information and
certain business relations, along with income and goodwill, for which a remedy at law is
inadequate.
111. Accordingly, the Defendants must be enjoined and restrained by Order of this
Court. In addition to a remedy at equity, Stryker seeks actual, incidental, compensatory, punitive,
COUNT IV
UNFAIR COMPETITION
(All Defendants)
112. Stryker hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
113. Defendants took the actions described above to gain an unfair competitive
114. Defendants willfully and maliciously took the actions described above and actions
to conceal their activities with full knowledge of and disregard for Strykers rights, and with the
22
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 23 of 26
115. As a result of Defendants actions, Defendants are unfairly competing in the foot
and ankle marketplace in Houston, Texas. Stryker has been damaged in an amount well in excess
of $75,000.
116. Stryker has been irreparably injured and it continues to face irreparable injury.
Stryker is threatened with losing the value of its confidential and proprietary information and
certain customer relationships, along with income and goodwill, for which a remedy at law is
inadequate.
117. Accordingly, the Defendants must be enjoined and restrained by Order of this
Court. In addition to a remedy at equity, Stryker seeks actual, incidental, compensatory, punitive,
COUNT V
CORPORATE RAIDING
(All Defendants)
118. Stryker hereby repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations
improperly and illegally acquire Strykers workforce, its customers and its goodwill, in order to
harm Stryker in the marketplace so that Defendants could unfairly compete against Stryker.
122. Until Defendants carried out their scheme, Stryker maintained valid relationships,
or the expectancy of relationships, with its customers and employees and maintained the
intellectual capital contained within its work force through training and experience. Stryker
23
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 24 of 26
reasonably expected that these relationships, its work force and its intellectual capital would
continue and would not be unjustifiably disrupted. Stryker has been damaged in an amount well
in excess of $75,000.
123. Stryker has been irreparably injured and it continues to face irreparable injury.
Stryker is threatened with losing the value of its confidential and proprietary information and
certain customer relationships, along with income and goodwill, for which a remedy at law is
inadequate.
124. Accordingly, the Defendants must be enjoined and restrained by Order of this
WHEREFORE, Stryker seeks judgment in its favor and against Defendants that:
(a) Permanently enjoins Defendants and all parties in active concert or participation with
them, from using or disclosing any of Strykers confidential and/or proprietary information
Strykers former employees to participate in any employment activity which would breach
(c) Permanently enjoins Defendants and all parties in active concert or participation with
them, from contacting, soliciting, diverting, continuing to service any of Strykers customers
diverted from Stryker to Defendants and their affiliates directly or indirectly from the efforts of
(d) Permanently enjoins Defendants from permitting or instructing Ruggles and Combs
and all parties in active concert or participation with them, from contacting, soliciting, diverting,
24
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 25 of 26
continuing to service any of Strykers customers with which Ruggles or Combs conducted
independent contractors to alter or terminate his, her, or its relationship with Stryker;
(g) Awards Stryker its costs and expenses incurred herein, including reasonable
attorneys fees;
(i) Awards Stryker any other legal or equitable relief just and appropriate under the
circumstances.
25
Case 4:17-cv-00742 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 03/08/17 Page 26 of 26
26