Two MedTech giants, one non-compete clause, and relationships nobody could prove existed
A Singapore court has refused to stop a former Boston Scientific director from working at rival Johnson & Johnson.
The decision, delivered on October 1, 2026, denied Boston Scientific Asia Pacific's bid for an interim injunction - essentially a court order to pull its former electrophysiology chief out of his new job at J&J while the companies' broader legal fight plays out.
Both Boston Scientific and J&J are heavyweights in the medical technology space, competing directly in electrophysiology - a branch of cardiology focused on the heart's electrical system. Boston Scientific says it was the first MedTech manufacturer to bring pulsed field ablation technology to the field.
The employee at the centre of the dispute had held the role of Commercial Director for Electrophysiology across the Asia-Pacific region. Boston Scientific described him as its "most senior EP executive in the Asia Pacific region," responsible for marketing, portfolio management, clinical and regulatory strategy, and physician education programmes, among other functions.
His contract included a 12-month non-compete clause. In return for staying out of competing work, Boston Scientific would continue paying his monthly base pay for the entire restricted period.
He gave notice of his resignation on June 22, 2026, telling Boston Scientific's Chief Human Resources Officer and General Counsel that he planned to join J&J. He asked for a release from the non-compete.
Boston Scientific said no. It cited "very substantial and direct overlap" between the two roles.
He tried another tack - proposing a set of carve-outs that would narrow his J&J role to avoid areas of overlap. Boston Scientific rejected those too. It brought forward his termination to July 1, 2026, and confirmed it would pay the non-compete compensation.
Settlement talks continued through July and August. They ended when Boston Scientific discovered, via a public announcement on August 26, that its former director had started at J&J the day before. It filed suit on August 30 and sought the injunction the same day.
Here is where the case gets interesting for HR teams.
Boston Scientific did not argue the usual line - that the employee had built up relationships with its direct customers. His role had been distinct from the sales team, which dealt with the hospitals and clinics that actually purchased Boston Scientific's products. Instead, the company advanced a novel theory: that his relationships with Key Opinion Leaders and regional medical associations were "trade and client connections" worth protecting.
KOLs, in this context, are leading physicians whose endorsement of a technology can shape whether hospitals in the region adopt it. Medical associations provide forums for clinical education and professional guidance. Neither group buys Boston Scientific's products. But the company argued they drive adoption by influencing the institutions that do.
The court accepted this wasn't a hopeless argument. Under Singapore law, the categories of interests an employer can protect through a non-compete are not closed. If MedTech companies genuinely depend on KOL relationships to drive sales, there was at least a serious question worth putting to trial.
But that low bar wasn't enough to secure an injunction. For that, Boston Scientific needed what the court called a "good arguable case" - meaning it had to show it had the better of the argument on the evidence actually before the court. That is where the case fell apart.
The court went through Boston Scientific's supporting documents one by one. The vast majority were internal approval memos showing the former director had signed off on logistics for workshops and training events. One email showed him coordinating dates with a physician whose identity was redacted. Another circulated advisor profiles internally. A third informed advisors of logistics for an advisory board meeting in Tokyo. None demonstrated that the employee had built meaningful relationships with any KOL, or that he held any influence over their views.
And critically, Boston Scientific produced no data connecting KOL endorsements to actual product sales. The court noted that a company of its size would readily have such data if the connection existed.
The employee said in his sworn statement that he never met any physician or KOL more than twice a year - and in most cases, only once - typically at academic congresses. J&J described the KOL reference in his LinkedIn job description as a "high-level aspiration that would appear in any senior marketing strategy role in the MedTech Industry."
There was a second gap. Boston Scientific offered no real explanation for why a 12-month restricted period was necessary to protect these connections. The court observed that an employer cannot simply pick a duration without justification.
Even setting the evidence problems aside, the court found that money could adequately compensate Boston Scientific if it eventually won. The value of KOL relationships, on Boston Scientific's own case, came down to product sales - and lost sales can be measured.
The balance tipped further against the injunction when the court weighed the damage to the employee. Forcing him out of his J&J role would have caused irreversible harm to his career in a specialised industry - a cost that goes well beyond lost wages.
The application was dismissed. A consent order governing the parties' conduct pending the hearing was also set aside with immediate effect. Costs were reserved to the main proceeding.
For HR teams enforcing non-competes anchored to relationship-based trade connections, the case is a practical warning: if you claim an employee's professional relationships are worth protecting, come prepared with evidence that those relationships actually exist and drive revenue.
The underlying claim remains before the Singapore High Court for determination on the merits. The court's findings in this decision were limited to the interim injunction application and do not determine the parties' substantive rights. No final ruling has been made on the validity or enforceability of the non-compete clauses.
