General Electric Corp. v. Ziarati

Full title: GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION, a New York corporation Plaintiff-Appellee…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 1, 2001

5 F. App'x 664 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

5 Fed.Appx. 664 (9th Cir. 2001) GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION, a New York corporation Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mokhtar ZIARATI; Resonance Technology, Inc. Defendants-Appellants No. 99-56317. D.C. No. CV-98-0434-MRP. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 1, 2001

Argued and Submitted February 14, 2001.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Employer brought action for breach of contract and specific performance against by its former employee under patent innovation agreement. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Mariana R. Pfaelzer, J., ordered employee to assign relevant patents to employer. Employee appealed. The Court of Appeals held that employer's concession that agreement did not require employee to assign patents precluded finding that employer breached or was required to perform contract regarding assignment of patents.

Reversed.

Page 665.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Mariana R. Pfaelzer, District Judge, Presiding.

Before FERGUSON, TASHIMA, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The trial court granted summary judgment on Appellee General Electric's ("GE") "breach of contract/specific performance" claim, ordering assignment of the relevant patents to GE by its former employee, Appellant Mokhtar Ziarati.

The foundation of the district court's judgment was the following conclusion: "Ziarati is obligated under his Innovation Agreement to assign the ... patents to GE." That conclusion cannot be sustained. Ziarati, in his proposed statement of uncontroverted facts, asserted that "the Innovation Agreement does not require that the employee assign patents." For the purpose of summary judgment, GE conceded--both at the trial court and on appeal--Ziarati's proposed facts.

When the matter was called to the attention of the parties during oral argument before this Court, counsel for Appellee did not claim mistake or excusable neglect or seek any relief from this court. Therefore, it stands as a stipulated fact by the parties that the contract did not require Ziarati to assign his patents to GE. That being the case, there could be no breach or specific performance of the contract regarding the assignment of patents.

REVERSED.