Background
Danaher Corporation hired Martin Stumpe as Chief Data and AI Officer in 2024, subsequently promoting him to Chief Technology and AI Officer in October 2025. In that senior role, Stumpe oversaw enterprise software development, AI architecture, and strategic technology planning across Danaher’s global operations spanning more than 60 countries. He reported directly to Danaher’s CEO, supervised eleven senior leaders including seven vice presidents, and had access to enterprise-wide strategic information including competitive intelligence and acquisition planning.
As a condition of employment, Stumpe signed a non-competition agreement on March 20, 2024, that included Delaware choice of law, exclusive venue, and consent-to-jurisdiction provisions. The non-compete prohibited him from working for competitors for 12 months after termination in roles involving the sale of competing products, developing competitive strategies, supervising competing employees, or utilizing confidential information.
On March 11, 2026, Siemens Medical Solutions offered Stumpe a position as Chief Technology Officer with a June 1 start date. Danaher, which considers Siemens a significant direct competitor in clinical diagnostics, laboratory systems, and molecular testing, moved for expedited proceedings and a preliminary injunction to block Stumpe from beginning employment at Siemens.
The Court’s Holding
The court’s June 26 order denied Stumpe’s motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal from the May 29 ruling. That May 29 ruling had denied Stumpe’s motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction and venue grounds, and granted Danaher’s motion for a preliminary injunction barring Stumpe from joining Siemens.
On the jurisdictional issue, the court held that while Washington law (RCW § 49.62.050) may void the choice of law and exclusive venue provisions in the parties’ agreement, it does not prohibit a party from consenting to personal jurisdiction in Delaware courts. Stumpe’s consent to Delaware court jurisdiction therefore remained enforceable despite Washington’s public policy against non-competes.
On the preliminary injunction, applying Delaware law, the court found Danaher likely to succeed on the merits of its anticipatory breach claim, including likely establishing that the non-compete provision was enforceable. The court further found irreparable harm absent an injunction and that the balance of equities favored the targeted preliminary relief. Denying the interlocutory appeal, the court concluded that while the jurisdictional issue was substantial, the costs of delay and disruption outweighed the benefits, particularly given that standards governing preliminary injunctions are well-established and an expedited trial is scheduled for November 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A Washington-based employee’s consent to personal jurisdiction in Delaware courts may remain enforceable even if that state’s public policy voids choice of law and exclusive venue provisions within the same agreement.
- Delaware courts will grant preliminary injunctions preventing former employees from beginning employment at competitors when the non-compete is likely enforceable and other preliminary injunction factors are satisfied.
- Interlocutory appeals of preliminary injunction rulings in non-compete cases are exceptional and require clear showing that appellate review benefits outweigh litigation costs and delay.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the enforceability of consent-to-jurisdiction clauses when employees challenge the choice of law provisions in the same contract. Senior technology executives and others in multi-state roles frequently negotiate restrictive covenants; this ruling signals that Delaware courts will enforce jurisdictional consent independently from—and despite—voiding of choice of law provisions under another state’s law. The decision also reinforces that preliminary injunctive relief is available in Delaware against former employees joining direct competitors when the non-compete is likely enforceable, which has significant implications for employers’ ability to preserve the status quo pending trial.
For employees, the decision underscores that relying on another state’s public policy to invalidate an entire restrictive covenant agreement may prove unsuccessful if the agreement separately and clearly establishes consent to jurisdiction in another forum. The ruling also reflects Delaware’s general willingness to enforce non-compete agreements when supported by legitimate business interests, particularly for senior executives with broad access to competitive information.