United States: Court Refuses To Enforce Invention Assignment Agreement As Unlawful Noncompete

Last Updated: June 30 2009
Article by Victor Schachter and Allen M. Kato

In Applied Materials v. Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Company, the federal district court for the Northern District of California refused to enforce an invention assignment clause that required former employees to assign inventions disclosed within one year of termination of employment if the invention related to work performed by the employee for the employer. In this unfair competition matter brought by Applied Materials ("Applied") against Advanced Micro-Fabrication ("Advanced"), a company based in Shanghai, China, Advanced had hired several Applied employees. Applied alleged that its former employees misappropriated trade secrets by disclosing inventions conceived by them within one year of termination of their employment with Applied. At the commencement of employment with Applied, each had signed an invention-assignment agreement stating that any invention disclosed by the employee within one year after terminating employment with Applied was presumed to be conceived during employment for Applied and "will be assigned to Applied ... provided it relates to my work with Applied." Applied sought to enforce the invention assignment provision against the former employees and thereby obtain rights to the patents at issue. Granting Advanced's motion for summary judgment against Applied's attempt to enforce the agreement, the court held that the clause impermissibly required assignment of post-employment inventions (regardless of when conceived or whether based on Applied's confidential information) in violation of California's prohibition on noncompete agreements. If appealed, this decision is likely to be upheld given California's strong public policy against non-compete agreements.

News Bites

Court Affirms Arbitrator Award Of Over $4 Billion To Former Marketing Officer

A California court confirmed an earlier $4 billion arbitration award in favor of a former marketing officer in Chester v. iFreedom Communications Inc. the arbitrator concluded that the employer breached an employment contract by discharging the employee without cause and failing to pay commissions as required by his agreement. Post-judgment interest alone is accruing at the rate of over $1 million per day until the award is paid. The arbitrator, retired Judge William F. McDonald, awarded almost $1 billion in compensatory damages and interest, and $3 billion in punitive damages, plus sanctions for the employer's failure to pay arbitration fees.

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Pregnancy Bias Claim In Calculation of Pension

In A.T.&T. Corp. v. Hulteen, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the employer lawfully calculated pension benefits for employees who took pregnancy disability leave during the 1960s and 1970s. Before the passage of the federal Pregnancy Disability Act in 1979, for the purpose of calculating pension benefits, the employer gave lesser service credit for employees who took pregnancy disability leave than for other types of leave of absence. The court held that the employer's pre-1979 limitation of pension credit for pregnancy leave was lawful at the time, and that the recent Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act did not apply as there was no unlawful act that affected the present pension benefits.

Starbucks Wins Appeal of $86 Million Ruling Over Tips

In Chau v. Starbucks Corporation, plaintiff Chau, on behalf of himself and other Starbucks "baristas," obtained an $86 million court decision against Starbucks Corporation. The court had concluded that Starbucks's policy permitting shift supervisors to share in tips that customers place in a collective tip box violated California law. Reversing the award, the California court of appeal held that state law allows shift supervisors to share in the proceeds placed in collective tip boxes. The court further explained that employers may not require employees to share a tip given to an individual employee.

Field Service Representatives Not Entitled To On-Call Waiting Time Pay

In Gomez v. Lincare, Inc., field service representatives for a medical equipment company sued their employer for unpaid wages including overtime. Although the California court of appeal ruled that a jury trial was required to determine whether the employees were exempt from overtime as "drivers" under the motor carrier exemption, the court dismissed the employees' claim for unpaid wages during on-call waiting time. The court noted that while the employees were (1) provided pagers, (2) required to respond to a page within 30 minutes by telephone, and (3) expected to arrive at the customer site within two hours of a page, they were allowed to engage in personal activities while on call, and they could trade on-call responsibilities with a co-worker. Although plaintiffs urged that they felt constrained from engaging in personal activities, the court held that the employee's unilateral decision to avoid personal activities while on call did not change the conclusion that the waiting time was non-compensable personal time.

"Me Too" Evidence Of Pregnancy Discrimination Allowed

In Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy, a California court of appeal directed a jury to decide whether the employer discharged plaintiff on account of her pregnancy. According to plaintiff, the day after she returned from a short sick leave related to her pregnancy, her supervisor terminated plaintiff from her job as a home-care counselor without giving her a specific reason. Although the employer asserted that plaintiff had falsified her time sheets, as part of its investigation the agency did not ask plaintiff to explain her hours. Further, the employer had never told plaintiff that her job performance was unsatisfactory. Notable, and troubling, was the court's acceptance of plaintiff's "me too" declarations by other co-workers that they too were fired after they became pregnant, and evidence of other occasions where employees were cited for dishonesty but were not fired.

Employee Required To Arbitrate Vacation Pay Claim

In Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. Moreno, a California court of appeal required an employee to arbitrate his vacationpay claim despite the state Labor Commissioner's novel objection that the employee should first be allowed to have his claim decided by the Department of State Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE") and then arbitrated if the employer was dissatisfied with the DLSE decision. The court held that the federal Arbitration Act required arbitration in lieu of the administrative hearing. The court also opined that the "Armendariz" protections afforded to employees apply to such vacation-pay disputes (for instance, the employer must pay the arbitration forum fees and costs).

Inadequate Investigation Requires Trial Of Alleged Harasser's Wrongful Discharge Claim

In Sassaman v. Gamache, the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals (covering eastern states including New York) sent to trial an employee's claim that he was constructively discharged on account of his sex. The employee in this case accused his female supervisor of sexual harassment. During an investigation, it was claimed that an employer representative allegedly told plaintiff that he would be terminated unless he resigned because "you probably did what she said you did because you're male." The plaintiff resigned and filed the lawsuit for sex discrimination. The court held that the alleged statement "you're male" was direct evidence of an "invidious sex stereotype," and the failure to conduct a thorough investigation was circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent sufficient to require a jury trial. It was noted that the matter was never referred to the employer's EEO officer who normally investigated such claims.

Sexual Comments Within Closely Grouped Cubicles Support Sex Harassment Claim

In Gallagher v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Midwestern states including Ohio) held that plaintiff was entitled to a trial of her hostile environment claim. Gallagher worked on an office floor of closely grouped cubicles. After four months, she resigned and filed suit, alleging that co-workers used derogatory terms for women, described by the court as "explicitly sexual" and "patently degrading to women," viewed pornography on their computers, and left pornographic magazines open on their desks. Based upon her admission that virtually none of the comments were directed at her, and because Gallagher had not complained to upper management, the lower court dismissed the claim of sexual harassment as not sufficiently "severe or pervasive". Reversing, the appellate court held that the district court improperly ignored the office configuration of closely grouped cubicles which rendered Gallagher a "captive audience."

Wal-Mart Settles More Class Actions Involving Over 3 Million Employees For Up To $139 Million

A Nevada federal district court judge in In re Wal-Mart Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litigation approved a settlement between Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and plaintiffs in over 30 class action lawsuits in which Wal-Mart agreed to pay up to $85 million to cover claims by over 3 million employees. Also, in Braun v. Wal-Mart Inc., a state court in Minnesota approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit covering about 100,000 employees that requires Wal-Mart to pay up to $54 million. Earlier, in December 2008, Wal-Mart reached agreements in 63 other wage and hour class action suits over off-the-clock work, failure to provide required meal and rest breaks, and failure to pay overtime. The latest group of settled cases included claims of employees in California for various alleged wage and hour violations.

Employee Allowed To Challenge Drug Test As ADA Violation

In Bates v. Dura Auto. Systems Inc., a federal district court in Tennessee held that a jury must decide plaintiff's claim that the employer's random drug testing program violated the ADA. After multiple positive post-accident drug test results at an auto-parts manufacturing plant, the employer implemented a plant-wide random drug testing program. Plaintiff Bates was terminated after testing positive for oxycodone. According to Bates, the medication was prescribed by her physician for pain. The court held that the drug test was a medical examination under the ADA, and that the employer was required to establish a realistic connection between the testing and the work performed such that the screening was consistent with "business necessity." Because the employer had allegedly refused to consider medical documentation that the worker was able to safely perform the job while taking the prescribed medication, the court directed a jury trial to determine if there was a business necessity for the tests.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
22 Oct 2019, Other, New York, United States

DLaw will be hosting a two-day summit on Disruptive Innovations in Legal Services providing a meaningful exploration of digital technology for the legal services professionals from specific emerging tools to new business models to creative client acquisition and retention strategies.

29 Oct 2019, Webinar, California, United States

In the digitized world of the twenty-first century, it is more important than ever for every organization to know as much as possible about the information it creates, stores, received and maintains.

14 Nov 2019, Other, California, United States

LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other social networking sites offer lawyers myriad avenues for communicating with each other and the public about a host of issues.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions