Corporation Lawsuits

1. What are some cases where Company A did not care to sue Company B, but Company C bought Company A, and now they are suing Company B?

-Such is the case for Java programming language. Java was originally created and owned by Sun Microsystems, but shortly after it was bought by Oracle, Oracle sued Google for Google's usage of Java in Google's Androids. Specifically, when Google came out with their 1st Android, the president and CEO of Sun Microsystems had this to say "We decided to grit our teeth and support it so anyone supporting it would see us as part of the value chain." After Oracle finished acquiring Sun Microsystem, they sued Google 7 months after.

-Nokia and Microsoft vs. Android Manufacturers: Microsoft acquired Nokia's mobile phone business in 2014. After the acquisition, Microsoft started suing various Android manufacturers, including Samsung, Motorola (which was a subsidiary of Google at the time), and HTC, alleging that they violated Microsoft's patents related to Android. These lawsuits were seen as a way for Microsoft to exert pressure on Android device manufacturers to consider using the Windows Phone operating system. By 2013, it was reported that Microsoft was earning more money from Android patent licensing fees than from its own Windows Phone sales. Despite the revenue from these agreements, Windows Phone's market share remained low, and Microsoft eventually discontinued the platform in 2017.

2. What are some examples where Company A sued Company B, but Company C bought Company A, and Company C dropped the lawsuit against Company B?

-Motorola sued Apple over smartphone patents in the early 2010s, alleging that Apple infringed on its mobile technology patents. In 2012, Google acquired Motorola Mobility to strengthen its patent portfolio and protect Android from lawsuits by Apple and other competitors. After acquiring Motorola, Google dropped several lawsuits against Apple. Google had broader strategic goals to de-escalate litigation with Apple, especially as the 2 companies had overlapping interests and preferred focusing on innovation rather than prolonged legal battles.

-Broadcom was engaged in intense legal battles with Qualcomm over patent disputes related to wireless communication technologies in the 2000s. In 2015, Avago Technologies acquired Broadcom and took on the Broadcom name. Avago (now Broadcom) shifted focus to growing its semiconductor business and fostering partnerships rather than pursuing costly litigation. The lawsuits with Qualcomm were largely de-escalated, as Qualcomm was a key customer and ally in some areas of the semiconductor market.

-Novell sued Microsoft in the mid-2000s over antitrust practices related to Novell's WordPerfect software. In 2010, Attachmate acquired Novell, primarily to gain control of Novell's SUSE Linux business. Attachmate deprioritized the lawsuit against Microsoft, as its focus was on leveraging Novell's assets for business partnerships and innovation rather than continuing legal battles. Attachmate and Microsoft shared interests in enterprise software, and the lawsuit eventually lost momentum.

-Palm engaged in patent disputes with Apple in the late 2000s, particularly over smartphone technologies. In 2010, HP acquired Palm to develop its webOS platform. HP deprioritized Palm's legal disputes with Apple, focusing instead on leveraging webOS for its own products. HP had no interest in prolonging litigation with Apple, as the 2 companies were aligned in some enterprise markets.

3. What are some cases where Company A never cared to sue Company B, but, the CEO or president of Company A changed, and the next CEO or president of Company A, decides to sue Company B.

-Under Steve Jobs, Apple initially focused on licensing agreements and avoiding direct lawsuits with Samsung, despite growing competition in the smartphone market. But when Tim Cook became CEO in 2011, Apple escalated its legal battle with Samsung, suing the company for patent infringement in what became known as the "smartphone wars." These lawsuits centered around design and functionality patents for the iPhone and iPad.

-Qualcomm had a strong business relationship with Apple, supplying modem chips for iPhones and maintaining amicable ties despite disputes over licensing fees. But when Steve Mollenkopf became Qualcomm’s CEO in 2014, the company became more aggressive in defending its patent licensing model, which led to lawsuits with Apple over licensing fees and patent infringement starting in 2017.

4. What are some cases where Company A sued Company B. But the CEO or president of Company A changed, and the new CEO or president of Company A is dropping the lawsuit against Company B.

-Oracle Corporation vs. Google: As previously mentioned, Oracle sued Google over the use of Java in Android. The lawsuit began under Oracle's former CEO, Larry Ellison. However, under the leadership of Safra Catz and Mark Hurd, who succeeded Ellison as co-CEOs, Oracle decided to dismiss some of the claims in the lawsuit, narrowing its scope.

I have 2 other cases where the 2 companies reached an agreement, where the CEO of Company A changed.

5. What are some examples where Company A sued Company B, but both companies later agreed to merge?

-Exxon also was awarded $171 million in damages in a patent-infringement lawsuit against Mobil Corp. before the 2 firms agreed to merge.

-In 2000, Continental Airlines filed a lawsuit against United Airlines over the installation of carry-on baggage templates at Dulles International Airport. Continental alleged that United's actions were anti-competitive and violated the Sherman Act, as they potentially restricted passengers' ability to carry on baggage. In 2010, United Airlines and Continental Airlines agreed to merge, forming United Continental Holdings.

6. What are some examples where Company A sued Company B, but both companies were bought by Company C?

To answer a question like this, you would need to research:

-(Phone industry): Has SunCom, VoiceStream, or Western Wireless sued each other before, or have any of them been in lawsuit with Sprint? (All bought by T-mobile).
-(Car industry): Has Mercedes-Benz ever been in a lawsuit with Jeep, American Motors Corporation, or Dodge before? (Benz bought Chrysler, and all these companies are now part of Stellantis).
-(Pharmaceutical industry): Has Wyeth, Medivation, or Array BioPharma sued each other before? (All became Pfizer).
-(Bank industry): Has Bank 1 Corporation, Washington Mutual, or Bear Stearns sued each other before? (All became JP Morgan Chase.).

And if the answer is yes, it's more likely an acquisition happened, after a settlement happened, rather than before.

Lawsuits between pharmaceutical companies.

Teva Pharmaceuticals vs. AstraZeneca (2007): Teva Pharmaceuticals and Barr Laboratories (which Teva later acquired) filed a lawsuit against AstraZeneca over patents for the acid reflux drug Nexium. It was settled in Jan. 2010, where AstraZeneca has granted Teva a license to enter the US market with its generic esomeprazole on 27 May 2014, subject to regulatory approval, or earlier in certain circumstances. Teva has conceded that all patents-at-issue in Teva's US Nexium patent litigations are valid and enforceable. In a separate agreement, AstraZeneca and Teva have agreed to settle patent litigation related to Prilosec (omeprazole). Under this agreement, Teva will make a 1-time payment to AstraZeneca for past infringing sales.

Teva patented in 1999 a method for stabilizing drugs known as statins, which help lower cholesterol. Statins are inherently unstable and require an added compound to be medically effective. In 2008, Teva sued AstraZeneca over its cholesterol drug Crestor, which contains the active ingredient rosuvastatin calcium, a stabilized statin. AstraZeneca argued it 1st manufactured a batch of the drug in mid-1999, before Teva obtained its patent. The batch included a compound Teva later identified as a stabilizer. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sided with AstraZeneca, invalidating the Teva patent based on AstraZeneca's prior invention. Under federal law, a patent is invalid if someone else made the invention 1st and did not abandon, suppress or conceal it.

AbbVie vs. Amgen (2019): AbbVie filed a lawsuit against Amgen over its biosimilar version of AbbVie's blockbuster drug Humira, used to treat autoimmune diseases. The lawsuit alleged patent infringement and sought to delay Amgen's entry into the market. The case was settled, allowing Amgen to launch its biosimilar in 2023.

Covid vaccine producer Moderna has sued fellow vaccine maker Pfizer for patent infringement. The company pledged in 2020 not to enforce its patents as many companies raced to develop a vaccine. But in 2022 it amended this pledge saying it may start enforcing its patents in higher-income countries. If Moderna can prove Pfizer used part of its IP to make its vaccine, suing could secure them a royalty on all sales of Pfizer's vaccine after March 2022. Even if it's a small percentage, Pfizer's vaccine sales continue to be in the billions of dollars; that can add up. Also, Moderna and most other drug companies feel compelled to file patent-infringement lawsuits to defend the principle of protections for innovation, and to deter other companies from launching future products that may infringe their patents.

Lawsuits between biochemistry companies.

Sept. 2020.
The long-running patent battle over CRISPR (ongoin), the genome editor that may bring a Nobel Prize and many millions of dollars to whoever is credited with its invention, has taken a new twist that vastly complicates the claims made by a team led by the University of California (UC).

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled on 10 September that a group led by the Broad Institute has "priority" in its already granted patents for uses of the original CRISPR system in eukaryotic cells, which covers potentially lucrative applications in lab-grown human cells or in people directly. But the ruling also gives the UC group, which the court refers to as CVC because it includes the University of Vienna and scientist Emmanuelle Charpentier, a leg up on the invention of one critical component of the CRISPR tool kit.

Jennifer Doudna, a biochemist at UC Berkeley, and Charpentier, now with the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, 1st published evidence that the bacteria-derived CRISPR system could cut targeted DNA in June 2012, 7 months before the Broad team led by Feng Zhang published its own evidence it could be a genome editor. But the CVC team did not show in its initial paper that CRISPR worked inside eukaryotic cells as Zhang's team did in its report, even though the original CVC patent application broadly attempted to cover any use of the technology. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued several CRISPR-related patents to Broad beginning in 2014, sparking a legal a battle in 2016 based on CVC claims of patent "interference." That led to a 1st PTAB trial, which seemed to deliver a mixed verdict, ruling that the eukaryotic CRISPR and other uses of the genome editor were separate inventions, patentable by Broad and CVC, respectively. Unsatisfied, CVC took the issue to a federal court, which denied its appeal.

CVC subsequently filed new claims that led PTAB to declare a 2nd interference. The board this time did a more direct comparison of which group had the best evidence for the 1st demonstration that CRISPR worked in eukaryotic cells. The PTAB ruling did not accept CVC arguments that it crossed this line 1st, giving the priority edge to Broad.

This doesn't settle the dispute, but instead requires CVC provide more evidence that it was 1st at a future hearing. "The interference [hearing] is going ahead all the way this time to determine who was the 1st to invent," says Catherine Coombes, a patent attorney at the U.K legal firm Murgitroyd who has not been involved in the case but handled other CRISPR litigation in Europe. Coombs notes there's "a large gap" between the CRISPR patent environment in the U.S. and Europe, where CVC has won the upper hand in the European Union's patent office.

Lawsuits between chemical companies.

Dow Chemical vs. ExxonMobil (Dec. 1996): Dow Chemical sued ExxonMobil over a dispute related to a plastic resin called polyethylene. Dow accused ExxonMobil of stealing trade secrets and engaging in anticompetitive behavior. ExxonMobil won and the lawsuit was dismissed.

Dow Chemical vs. Nova Chemicals (2010): Dow accused Nova of patent infringement related to a plastic resin known as bimodal polyethylene, used to make plastic shopping bags and stretch wrap. It won its case in an Ontario court in 2017 and then at an appeals court, before Nova took its appeal to the top Canadian court, which still sided with Dow at $482 million.

Monsanto vs. DuPont (2012): Monsanto, a major biotechnology and chemical corporation, sued DuPont, another chemical giant, over alleged patent infringements related to genetically modified seeds and agricultural technology. The lawsuit was settled in March of 2013, with DuPont agreeing to pay Monsanto $1.75 billion.

Lawsuits between computer companies.

AMD vs. Intel (2005): Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) filed a lawsuit against Intel, alleging anticompetitive behavior and antitrust violations in the microprocessor market. The lawsuit claimed that Intel used unfair tactics to maintain its dominant market position. In 2009, Intel agreed to pay AMD $1.25 billion to settle the dispute.

Oracle vs. Google (2010): Oracle sued Google over copyright and patent infringement related to Google's use of Java in its Android operating system. The lawsuit focused on whether Google's use of Java APIs constituted fair use. In 2016, a jury found in favor of Google, concluding that its use of Java APIs was fair use.

Apple Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co. (2012): While not directly related to pharmaceuticals, this lawsuit is famous for its relevance to the pharmaceutical industry. Apple accused Samsung of infringing on its patents related to mobile devices, including smartphones and tablets. The lawsuit resulted in a $1.05 billion judgment in favor of Apple.

Lawsuits between car companies.

General Motors vs. Volkswagen (1969): General Motors (GM) filed a lawsuit against Volkswagen (VW) over allegations that VW had infringed on GM patents related to air pollution control technology. The lawsuit was settled in 1972, with VW agreeing to pay GM $50 million.

Lawsuits between fast food companies.

KFC vs. Church's Chicken (1986): KFC sued Church's Chicken over a trademark dispute related to the use of the term "Original Recipe" to describe fried chicken. KFC claimed that Church's Chicken's use of the term was confusing to consumers. The lawsuit was settled with Church's Chicken agreeing to change its advertising and pay KFC an undisclosed amount.

Pizza Hut vs. Papa John's (1997): Pizza Hut sued Papa John's over a marketing campaign in which Papa John's compared its pizzas to those of its competitors, including Pizza Hut. Pizza Hut claimed that the campaign contained false and misleading statements. Although Papa John's lost in the district court, it later won in the appellate court. Initially, a jury sided with Pizza Hut, agreeing that Papa John's claims of better sauce and dough were false or misleading. The judge ordered Papa John's to stop using the "better ingredients, better pizza" slogan and awarded Pizza Hut $467,619 in damages. This was a loss for Pizza Hut, as the real prize was getting Papa John's to stop using the slogan. The judge told Papa John's to stop using any materials with that slogan, pull ads, and also pay Pizza Hut $12.5 million in damages. The federal appeals court said the jurors were never asked if consumers relied on Papa John's "better" claims when deciding what pizza to buy. And so, in Sept. 2000, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict and ruled in favor of Papa John's, so the company was allowed to use the slogan again and did not have to pay Pizza Hut any damages.

Subway vs. Quiznos (2007): Subway filed a lawsuit against Quiznos over a marketing campaign that compared Quiznos' sandwiches to those of Subway. Subway alleged that Quiznos' ads contained false and misleading statements. The lawsuit was settled in 2009, with Quiznos agreeing to pay Subway an undisclosed amount.

Lawsuits between clothing store companies.

Levi Strauss vs. Abercrombie & Fitch (2007): Levi's accused A&F of copying its “arcuate” stitching design on the back pockets of jeans. The court ruled in favor of Abercrombie & Fitch, saying Levi’s trademark wasn’t infringed.

Christian Louboutin vs. Yves Saint Laurent (2011): Louboutin sued YSL over red-soled shoes, arguing it held a trademark for the red sole. A U.S. appeals court ruled Louboutin could trademark contrasting red soles, but not monochrome red shoes like YSL’s design.

Macy's vs. J.C. Penney (2012): were embroiled in a legal battle over the exclusive rights to sell Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia products. Macy's had an exclusive agreement with Martha Stewart, and the lawsuit arose when J.C. Penney entered into a partnership with the same brand. The case resulted in a settlement in Feb. 2017 in which J.C. Penney agreed to pay Macy's a undisclosed amount and scaled back its plans to sell Martha Stewart products. However in 2016, judge ordered J.C. Penney to pay Macy's about $3.5 million of damages, but both companies appealed from that order.

Lululemon vs. Calvin Klein (2012): alleging Calvin Klein's "Performance" athletic wear line infringed on Lululemon's patented waistband design. The lawsuit resulted in a settlement later that year where Calvin Klein agreed to pay Lululemon an undisclosed amount.

Adidas vs. Forever 21 (multiple lawsuits, 2015–2017): for allegedly copying its famous three-stripe design. These cases were eventually settled confidentially, with the court dismissing claims, likely as part of a private agreement.

Forever 21 vs. Brandy Melville (2016): a copyright infringement lawsuit over alleged unauthorized use of graphic designs that Forever 21 claimed to have created or owned. The parties voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice, which strongly indicates that a settlement agreement was reached outside of court.

Burberry vs. J.C. Penney (2016): a trademark infringement lawsuit, alleging that J.C. Penney had sold scarves and outerwear that featured a plaid pattern similar to Burberry's iconic check pattern. The lawsuit was settled with J.C. Penney agreeing to pay Burberry an undisclosed amount.

H&M vs. Unicolors (2016): Unicolors, a textile design company, sued H&M for using copyrighted fabric prints without permission. The case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court on a procedural issue and was ultimately decided in Unicolors’ favor in 2022.

Forever 21 vs. Gucci (2017): Forever 21 preemptively sued Gucci seeking a ruling that it had not infringed Gucci’s trademarks by using blue-red-blue and green-red-green stripes on its clothing. The case was dismissed after Gucci dropped its counterclaims.

Lululemon vs. Peloton (2021): for allegedly making similar-looking apparel. 2 years later, the companies patched up their relationship and partnered to sell branded clothing.

Lawsuits between electronics or engineering companies.

Samsung sued Fujitsu in 2003, accusing it of infringing its PDP patents. In April 2004, Fujitsu counter-sued, though the 2 companies eventually settled out of court by signing a cross-licensing agreement.

Matsushita sued LG in Nov. 2004, prompting the South Korean firm to counter-sue immediately.

Samsung vs. Panasonic (2005): Samsung filed a lawsuit against Panasonic (owned by Matsushita), alleging that Panasonic had violated its patents related to plasma display panel technology. "We filed a lawsuit in the US, where there is the greatest demand for digital TVs, because we thought the US, as a 3rd-party would, have no conflict of interest and thus ensure a fair trial," a Samsung spokesman said. The lawsuit resulted in a settlement, with Panasonic agreeing to pay Samsung for patent licensing.

Intel vs. Qualcomm (2017): Intel filed an antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm, accusing Qualcomm of anticompetitive practices in the smartphone chip market. Intel claimed that Qualcomm had abused its market dominance to stifle competition. The lawsuit was settled in 2019, with Qualcomm agreeing to pay Intel an undisclosed sum.

Where Company A sued Company B, because Company B hired some of Company A's employees.

IBM vs. Apple (2008): IBM sued a former executive who had joined Apple, Mark Papermaster, alleging that he violated his 1-year non-compete agreement by taking a position at Apple that conflicted with his role at IBM. Papermaster's decision to move from IBM to Apple in 2008 became central to a court case considering the validity and scope of an employee non-compete clause in the technology industry. Papermaster countersued, arguing that Apple had hired him for his management and engineering abilities, not for insider knowledge of IBM processors. Apple and IBM reached a settlement in Jan. 2009 where "Papermaster could only work for Apple after a 6-month unpaid vacation."

Papermaster became senior vice president of devices hardware engineering at Apple in 2009, with oversight for devices such as the iPhone. In 2010 he left Apple and joined Cisco Systems as a VP of the company's silicon engineering development. Papermaster joined AMD on Oct. 24, 2011, assuming oversight for all of AMD's technology teams and the creation of all of AMD's products, and AMD's corporate technical direction.

Starbucks vs. Dunkin Donuts (Oct. 2009): Starbucks had sued Paul Twohig, claiming that he was violating an agreement that he would not work for a competitor for 18 months after leaving Starbucks. Twohig had been in charge of Starbucks' Southeast retail operations before leaving Starbucks in March. When he starts his new job, Twohig will report directly to Nigel Travis, the CEO of Dunkin' Brands and the president of the company's Dunkin' Donuts chain. The lawsuit was quickly settled for $500,000. A spokesman for Dunkin' Brands, which wasn't a defendant in the lawsuit, said Twohig continues to train and learn the company's systems by spending time in its stores and meeting with its field team. He said the company is pleased Twohig was able to resolve the issue with Starbucks. It was unclear who would be paying for the $500,000 that is owed Starbucks under the terms of the settlement. The Dunkin' spokesman declined to comment, saying that the terms of the settlement are private.

Hewlett-Packard vs. Oracle (2011): HP sued both Oracle, over the hiring of Mark Hurd, a former CEO of HP, and Mark Hurd himself. HP claimed that Hurd's hiring violated a confidentiality agreement he had with HP (breach of contract), and they accused him of breaching his contractual obligations. He served as the CEO of HP from 2005 until his resignation in 2010. After leaving HP, he later joined Oracle as co-president in 2010. The lawsuit was settled 2 weeks later, with Hurd giving up about half the compensation owed him by HP, as well as 345,000 stock units, in which the 2nd was estimated to be about $13.6 million.

EMC Corporation vs. Pure Storage (2013): EMC sued Pure Storage and 44 of its employees who were former EMC employees, a competitor in the data storage industry, alleging theft of EMC's intellectual property. EMC alleged that these employees engaged in tortious interference by taking confidential information and using it to compete against EMC. EMC also claimed that Pure Storage infringed some of their patents. Pure Storage counter-sued, alleging that EMC illegally obtained a Pure Storage appliance for reverse engineering purposes. In 2016, a jury initially awarded $14 million to EMC. A judge reversed the award and ordered a new trial to determine whether the EMC patent at issue was valid. Pure Storage and EMC subsequently settled the case for $30 million.

Move, Inc. vs Zillow (2014): Move (operator of realtor.com) sued Zillow, an on-line real estate company, over allegations of employee poaching. Move claimed that Zillow engaged in unfair competition by hiring away 2 Move executives who had access to sensitive information, Errol Samuelson (as the chief industry-development officer) and shortly Curt Beardsley. The lawsuit was eventually settled with Zillow agreeing to pay $130 million in June 2016, though Move had seeked $1.8 billion. Move is owned by News Corp.

Much of the attention in the dispute turned to Zillow's July 2014 acquisition of Trulia for $2.5 billion. Move said that Zillow used confidential information from Samuelson to inform its acquisition of Trulia, which Zillow denies, Move saying they have been trying to buy Trulia since 2006. The National Association of Realtors, which was a party of the suit with Move, will receive 10% of the settlement.

Epic Systems vs. Tata Consultancy Services (Oct. 2014): Epic Systems, a healthcare software company, sued TCS, an IT services company, over allegations that TCS had hired some of its employees in violation of their non-compete agreements. The case resulted in a $140 million judgment against TCS in July 2023. They were initially rewarded $940 million in April 2016, then reduced to $420 million in 2017 by a Wisconsin judge. Epic Systems appealed when the settlement hit as low as $140 million, but lost.

Waymo vs. Uber (Feb. 2017): Waymo (a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company) sued Uber for allegedly stealing trade secrets related to autonomous vehicle technology. Waymo claimed that 3 former employees, including, Anthony Levandowski, had taken confidential files from Google, before joining Uber. An ensuing settlement gave Waymo 0.34% of Uber stock, the equivalent of $245 million.

Uber agreed not to infringe Waymo's intellectual property. Part of the agreement included a guarantee that "Waymo confidential information is not being incorporated in Uber Advanced Technologies Group hardware and software." In statements released after the settlement, Uber maintained that it received no trade secrets. In May, according to an Uber spokesman, Uber had fired Levandowski, which resulted in the loss of roughly $250 million of his equity in Uber, which almost exactly equaled the settlement. Uber announced that it was halting production of self-driving trucks through Otto in July 2018, and the subsidiary company was shuttered.

Merck vs. Pfizer (May 2019): In federal court in Pennsylvania, Merck filed a lawsuit against Pfizer for misappropriation of trade secrets for use in a directly competing vaccine program, from hiring Dr. Wendy Watson. Watson was a Merck employee for over 6 years, and was senior director and directory of regulatory liaison, which was the point of contact between Merck and the FDA. After informing Merck that she was leaving the company, and on her final 2 days of employment alone, Watson accessed and/or downloaded over 2,200 proprietary documents on Merck's secure computer system. Watson left Merck in 2011, but the New Jersey drugmaker didn't learn about the alleged theft until 2017, and much of the theft occurred "late at night and from home." At Pfizer, she became the senior vice president of vaccine clinical research and development.

Tesla vs. Rivian (July 2020): Tesla filed a lawsuit against Rivian, an electric vehicle startup, alleging that Rivian had hired Tesla employees and encouraged them to take confidential and proprietary information with them. Tesla claimed that Rivian was attempting to steal trade secrets related to electric vehicle technology. The employees listed in the lawsuits were 2 recruiters, an EHS manager, and a manager of Tesla's charging networks. However, this case was settled out of court by both parties in Dec. 2024.

-

Check out an image version of the above stories.

Note: Most of these examples involve California companies, a state which is famous for its weak enforcement of (and refusal to enforce) non-competition agreements (Washington state is similar.). In contrast, such agreements are very strictly enforced in Massachusetts, in particular, and on the East Coast, generally. Even in federal court, these cases would be subject to diversity jurisdiction and subject to state substantive law.

Other examples:

Cigna vs. CVS (Feb. 2023): Amy Bricker was president of Cigna's pharmacy benefit manager, reporting directly to the CEO of Evernorth, formerly known as Cigna Medical Group. Cigna is the parent company of Express Scripts. Then in Jan. 2023, Bricker joined CVS as executive vice president and chief produce officer. Cigna sued Bricker in Feb., and the Missouri judge granted Cigna a temporary injunction with Bricker starting her role at CVS (2023, and this was also upheld by appeals court in June 2024), which prevents her from being chief product officer. However, if Bricker is found to be wrongfully restrained in the outcome of this case, Cigna agrees to pay $250,000 in damages. However, on Nov. 6, 2024, shortly after a quarterly earnings call where CVS reported a major drop, CVS publicly announced senior leadership changes, and told her she was terminated effective immediately. However, the lawsuit was still settled in May 2025, where the agreement terms were not publicly disclosed.

Johnson & Johnson vs. Pfizer (March 2024): Andrew Brackbill was the Director of Trade Channel Strategy, where J&J claimed he had downloaded over 1,000 sensitive strategy-related files onto external hard drives 3 weeks before he resigned in July 2023, Stat News 1st reported. J&J also claimed Brackbill also accessed J&J information while at his new job in Pfizer, as Director of Contract Strategy. However, Brackbill died in Jan. 2025, and the lawsuit was dismissed in April.

Related:

6. What are examples where Company B bought Company A, but Company C later bought Company B, and Company C split Company A back into its own company again?

It's happened to Dole juices before. Dole was bought by Castle & Cooke in 1932. However, Castle & Cooke began to struggle financially and was bought in 1985 by billionaire David H. Murdock. Murdock separated Dole into its own company again in 1996. However, at that time, Castle & Cooke was no longer a bakery company, but a real estate company.

7a. What are examples where an employee(s) split off from Company A to start their own company, then got bought by a competitor of Company A as well as sued by Company A?

A competitor to Apple is Qualcomm. In 2019, Apple's chip architect Gerard Williams left the company suddenly to start his own data center chip startup company called Nuvia, bringing some Apple engineers with him. Apple sued Williams over IP concerns, then Qualcomm bought Nuvia in 2021, in a move to compete in ARM-based processors like Apple's. Apple dropped the case in 2023.

7b. What are examples where companies bought their split-off employee's company?

Microsoft: A key figure in the development of Microsoft Office, Charles Simonyi left Microsoft in 2002. He later founded Intentional Software, a company focused on collaborative computing. In 2017, Microsoft acquired Intentional Software.

Google: Andy Rubin worked for Google. He co-founded Android Inc. in October 2003 along with Rich Miner, Nick Sears, and Chris White. Android Inc. was a company focused on developing an advanced operating system for digital cameras at the time of its founding. In 2005, Google acquired Android Inc., and Andy Rubin continued to lead the development of the Android operating system within Google. Under Rubin's leadership, Android became 1 of the most widely used mobile operating systems globally.

8. What are some examples where a board member became the next CEO of a company? Rather than an underlying VP.

-Larry Culp, joined General Electric's board in 2018. Just months later, he was appointed CEO after John Flannery was ousted. This was the 1st outsider CEO in GE’s 126-year history, and brought in for turnaround expertise.

-John Sculley, a PepsiCo executive, joined Apple's board in 1983, brought in by Steve Jobs. This is 1 of the earliest examples of a board-backed outsider becoming CEO for brand and leadership strength. He later became CEO of Apple from 1983 to 1993.

-Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay 1998 to 2008, joined HP's board in Jan. 2011, and later became CEO in Sept. 2011 to 2015. HP was going through major strategic uncertainty and wanted a high-profile leader.

Where CompanyA pays CompanyB:

Google pays Apple: Google pays Apple billions annually to remain the default search engine in Safari on iPhones, iPads, and Macs. In 2021, a Bernstein analyst estimated that Google paid Apple $15 billion a year. In 2022, the estimate rose to $18–20 billion. In 2023–2024, the number still has hovered around $18–20 billion per year. Google has been the default search engine on Apple devices since 2003, when Safari was first introduced. By 2017, analysts estimated Google was paying Apple $3–5 billion/year.

Case studies:

Facebook statistics on how many fake accounts they took action on.

When I was suspended on Facebook for a day, on 9/29/2025, and appealed and won, I was given some statistics that I screenshoted.