IBM has won a restraining order that limits the duties of its former merger-and-acquisition chief in his new post at rival company Dell.
The IBM action concerns the potential misappropriation of trade secrets.
An appeals court granted the restriction on former IBM executive David Johnson from performing full duties at Dell. The decision reinstates a June 4, 2009 ruling that allowed Johnson to begin work with Dell, but "restricted him from advising Dell on any matter concerning the business strategy of Dell or IBM," and prohibited from disclosing any confidential IBM information in his possession, according to court documents.
The June 4, 2009 ruling asked Johnson to supply his counsel with a daily log of activities at Dell with "reasonable specificity," the amount of time involved in the activities and the persons involved. The log was to be made available to the IBM counsel on request, if ordered by the court.
IBM earlier accused Johnson of violating a non-competition agreement when he went to work for Dell. The emergency relief, granted to IBM by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on a temporary basis, will hold until a panel of judges can review the motion.
The relief reverses a district court ruling earlier on Friday in which a judge cleared Johnson to perform full duties as Dell's senior vice president of strategy. In the ruling, Judge Stephen Robinson said that IBM's case wasn't strong enough and that their actions raised significant doubts as to whether Johnson had entered into the noncompetition agreement.
Robinson also wrote that Johnson did not have the information "considered quintessential trade secret information -- detailed technical know-how, formulae, designs, or procedures." In addition, Johnson could suffer great hardship if the court enforced the agreement, Robinson wrote.
IBM then appealed Robinson's ruling with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Johnson was previously vice president of corporate development at IBM and was hired by rival Dell last month. He worked at IBM for 27 years, during which he directed the company's mergers and acquisitions strategy. In earlier court filings, IBM has argued that Johnson could hurt the company because he has knowledge of the "most sensitive confidential strategic information."
Registration is free, and gives you full access to our extensive white paper library, case studies & analysis, downloads & speciality areas, and more.
In 2005, IBM required executives to sign non-competition agreements to continue receiving benefits. Disagreeing with certain conditions in the non-competition agreement, Johnson signed the document on the wrong line.
Johnson said that IBM discovered that the signature wasn't properly executed and sent him a new non-competition agreement, which he never signed. IBM, however, alleged that Johnson had indeed signed a non-competition agreement.
Dell and IBM declined comment on the matter.
Be the first to comment on this article!