Storage Technology Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
395 F.3d 921 (2005)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Storage Technology Corporation (STC) (plaintiff) was a technology company working on data-storage networking products. Beginning in 1999, NuSpeed Internal Systems (NuSpeed) began hiring STC employees to work on an internet-based data-storage network. In total, NuSpeed hired over 20 people who were employed or had been employed by STC. In late 2000, Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) (defendant) acquired NuSpeed in a stock-for-stock transaction in which NuSpeed’s shareholders received $450 million in Cisco stock. At that time, NuSpeed had over 70 employees, most of whom had never worked for STC. NuSpeed was also working on different technologies than anything STC’s former employees worked on at STC or that STC was currently working on at the time of the acquisition. Ultimately, Cisco did not make a profit on NuSpeed’s work and as of 2003, Cisco’s operating losses for its NuSpeed unit totaled $50 million. STC sued Cisco, asserting tortious interference with STC’s contractual relationships with its employees due to NuSpeed hiring many former STC staff, among other claims. The district court granted Cisco’s motion for summary judgment, holding that STC failed to present evidence of recoverable damages for its tortious-interference claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gibson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.