Case ID: so2d_235/html/0313-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALOE CREME LABORATORIES, INC., Appellant, v. Alexander FARKAS, Appellee.
    No. 69-686.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 26, 1970.
    Rogers, Morris & Ziegler, Fort Lauder-dale, and James R. McKnight, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
    Cabot, Scott, Wenkstern & Casteel, Fort Lauderdale, and Carl G. Swanson, Merritt Island, for appellee.
    Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below appeals from an adverse judgment entered on a jury verdict. On the pivotal issue at trial, relating to plaintiff’s claim of ownership of a patent applied for and acquired by the defendant after he left the employ of the plaintiff, as to whether the process patented was developed by defendant during and in the course of the employment, or prior thereto as contended by the defendant, the evidence was in some conflict. An examination of the record discloses there was competent substantial evidence to support the verdict and judgment for the defendant. We have considered the contentions of the appellant, in the light of the record and briefs, and conclude that no reversible error has been shown.

Affirmed.