NetApp has suffered a setback in its case against former CTO Jonsi Stefánsson. A court in the US state of Florida has dismissed the complaint for jurisdictional reasons. NetApp is appealing the decision and taking further action.
The issue began in 2017 when NetApp acquired the Icelandic company Greenqloud. Stefánsson joined NetApp as CEO of Greenqloud, but left in June 2025 with five colleagues to found Red Stapler. Just four months later, this startup was acquired by NetApp competitor VAST Data. Stefánsson then became General Manager for Cloud at VAST Data and worked on software that competes with NetApp ONTAP.
Two employment contracts, one dispute
The court found two employment agreements between Stefánsson and NetApp, signed around the same time. When he joined the company in 2017, Stefánsson was living in Iceland, where there is no non-competition clause. He signed an employment agreement and a PIIA (Proprietary Information, Inventions, and Non-Solicitation Agreement). The PIIA required Stefánsson to assign inventions made during his employment to NetApp and to report new inventions for six months after his departure. He was also prohibited from using confidential information and from contacting NetApp employees or business partners.
In January 2023, Stefánsson moved to Orlando, Florida, on a three-year visa. He then became NetApp SVP and the employment contract was terminated. He later moved back to Iceland but returned to Florida to pack his belongings and sell his house. NetApp then sued him under the PIIA.
Jurisdiction dispute at the center
The dispute centered on which court had jurisdiction. Stefánsson’s lawyers argued that Iceland had the correct jurisdiction. The employment contract specified that legal issues had to be dealt with in an Icelandic court. According to them, the PIIA was effectively part of that contract, giving Iceland overarching jurisdiction.
NetApp, on the other hand, argued that Florida was the correct location. Stefánsson worked in Florida and was personally served with legal documents there while he was voluntarily present. NetApp’s legal team also argued that the forum selection in the employment contract did not apply because the company was only suing Stefánsson under the PIIA.
Florida Judge Julie Sneed disagreed with NetApp’s interpretation. She stated that NetApp had not demonstrated that this was the exceptional case in which public interests overwhelmingly rejected the enforcement of the forum selection clause. She granted Stefánsson’s motion to dismiss, but without prejudice. This means that NetApp can refile the case.
NetApp argues that the Florida court dismissed the case solely on location grounds, without addressing the substantive merits. The company has already appealed and is also taking separate legal action in Iceland.