This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Employment Contract
Patent

Pacific Coast Building Products Inc. v. Morgan Chivers

Published: Dec. 3, 2002 | Result Date: May 2, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 7932885 Verdict –  $0

Judge

John F. Kraetzer

Court

Alameda Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Chris Gibson

Ned M. Gelhaar


Defendant

Gina M. DeVito

Kirk B. Freeman


Experts

Plaintiff

Paul W. Vapnek
(technical)

David M. Ploense
(technical)

Charles J. Peterson
(technical)

Gary Hunter
(technical)

David L. Douglass
(technical)

Defendant

Satish Almaula
(technical)

Phillip H. Allman III, Ph.D.
(technical)

William Wigert
(technical)

Facts

In 1977, the plaintiff hired the defendant, a former employee, as a manager of one of its divisions. In 1994, while
still employed by the plaintiff, the defendant invented a process to recycle asphalt shingles. The defendant
resigned in February of 1995 and thereafter applied for a patent for the process he had invented. In May of
1997, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued him with a patent.
The plaintiff instituted the suit on the basis that the defendant had violated an employee
confidentiality agreement and the Uniform Trade Secret Act (UTSA) as set forth in Civil Code
Section 3426, et seq.).

Damages

The plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/cross-complainant maintained a claim for declaratory relief and requested a determination regarding the ownership of the patent for the process. The cross-complainant sought in excess of $350 million in damages on his counterclaim.

Other Information

The court granted the plaintiff/cross-defendantÆs directed verdict motions following the close of evidence disposing of the defendantÆs cross-complaint.

Deliberation

two days

Length

25 days


#80899

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390