Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03384/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03384-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VENTURE CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JAMES P. BARRETT,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A 

MATTER OF LAW

(Re: Docket No. 261)

In sport, to forfeit is to lose as penalty for wrongdoing or inaction. Think of the forlorn 

youth soccer coach, who cannot muster enough players on a holiday weekend. In law, to forfeit is 

to fail to make a timely assertion of a right. The pending motion is focused on one particular legal 

question concerning forfeiture: does California law allow the forfeiture of ownership rights in 

inventions that passed by operation of a contract?

A jury found that Defendant James P. Barrett had developed inventions, in whole or in 

part, on the time of his then-employer, Plaintiff Venture Design Services, Inc., or by using VDSI’s 

equipment, supplies, or facilities.1 The jury also found, however, that VDSI had forfeited its 

ownership rights in each invention.

2

 In an effort to reconcile these two findings, VDSI and 

Plaintiff Venture Corporation Ltd. renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 50(b), arguing that Barrett’s forfeiture defense was inapplicable as a matter of law and 

that no reasonable jury could have found that VDSI forfeited its ownership rights.

3

 

 

1

See Docket No. 238 at 3.

2

See id. at 4.

3

See Docket No. 261. Barrett argues that VCL lacks standing for this motion, because VCL was 

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 278 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 10
2

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Ventures’ motion is GRANTED, as explained below.

I.

Although patents are creatures of federal law, state law nevertheless plays an important

role in patent ownership disputes. “Usually, federal law is used to determine the validity and 

terms of an assignment,” but patent ownership is determined by state law.4 In California, Cal. 

Labor Code § 2870(a) restricts employee assignment contracts and provides:

(a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall 

assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer 

shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time 

without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information 

except for those inventions that either:

 (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the 

employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the 

employer; or

 (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.

(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee 

to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under

subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

VDSI is a California-based corporation. On November 1, 2003 Barrett began working for 

VDSI after VDSI acquired the business of Barrett’s previous employer. As a condition of his 

employment, Barrett signed an “Inventions Agreement.”

5

 The Inventions Agreement contains 

several key provisions relating to the disclosure of any inventions and the assignment to VDSI of 

Barrett’s rights to any such invention. With regard to disclosure, Section 3.1 provides:

[Barrett] will disclose promptly to the proper officers or attorneys of the Company in 

writing any idea, invention, work of authorship (including, but not limited to, computer 

 

not a party to the Inventions Agreement. See Docket No. 274 at 6. The court nonetheless may 

decide the motion on its merits, because VDSI and VCL jointly brought the motion, and there is 

no question that VDSI has standing to assert its rights under a contract to which it is a party.

4

Sky Technologies LLC v. SAP AG, 576 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Network Prot. 

Sciences, LLC v. Fortinet, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-01106-WHA, 2013 WL 4479336, at *4 (N.D. 

Cal. Aug. 20, 2013).

5

See Docket No. 11 at ¶ 15.

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 278 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 10
3

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

programs, software and documentation), formula, device, improvement, method, process 

or discovery, whether or not patentable or copyrightable (any of the foregoing items 

hereinafter referred to as an “Invention”), [he] may conceive, make, develop or work on, in 

whole or in part, solely or jointly with others during the term of [his] employment with the

Company. The disclosure required by this Section applies: (a) during the term of my 

employment and for six months thereafter; (b) during my regular hours of employment and 

to my time away from work; (c) whether or not the Invention was made at the suggestion 

of the Company; (d) whether or not the Invention was reduced to drawings, written 

description, documentation, models or other tangible form; and (e) to any Invention which, 

in the opinion of the Company, is related to the company because it is related:

i. to the general line of business engaged in by the Company;

ii. to any actual or anticipated business (including research and development) of the 

Company; or

iii. to suggestions made by the Company or which resulted from any work assigned by or 

performed for the Company.6

Section 3.2, which covers the assignment of rights to which Barrett agreed, provides that:

[Barrett] hereby assign[s] to the Company without royalty or any other further 

consideration my entire right, title and interest in and to any Invention [Barrett is] required 

to disclose under Section 3.1; provided, that [Barrett] acknowledge[s] and agree[s] that the

Company has hereby notified me that the assignment provided for in this Section 3.2 does 

not apply to any Invention which qualifies fully for exemption from assignment under the 

provisions of Section 2870 of the California Labor Code, a copy of which is attached 

hereto as Exhibit 3.2.7

In 2005, Barrett disclosed the first of the three inventions in dispute in this case.8 The 

parties refer to the inventions as “MineTracer,” U.S. Patent No. 8,294,568; a “Toxic Gas Removal 

and Air Conditioning System for Human Life Support in Enclosed Refuge Spaces” (the “Gas 

Scrubbing” system), U.S. Patent Application No. US2012/0304866A1; and “Gas Monitoring 

System with Oxygen Control for Human Life Support in Enclosed Refuge Space” (the “Gas 

Monitoring” system), U.S. Patent Application No. US2013/0153060A1.9 According to Barrett, 

 

6 Docket No. 1-4 at 1-2.

7

Id. at 2.

8

See Docket No. 11 at 3.4.

9

See id. at 3.1-3.3.

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 278 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 10
4

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

his purpose in disclosing these inventions and later assigning all patent rights in these inventions 

was not to satisfy any obligation to VDSI under Section 3.2 of the Inventions Agreement, as the 

Ventures claim, but rather as part of a separate joint venture he agreed to with VCL, VDSI’s 

parent corporation.10 In any event, after VDSI terminated Barrett in 2013, Barrett asserted that his 

patent assignments to VCL were not effective.11 

The Ventures then filed suit for a declaration that Barrett has no ownership or other rights 

in either the patent or the patent applications.12 Barrett counterclaimed, alleging breach of 

fiduciary duty arising from a joint venture; repudiation of a joint venture; conversion; breach of 

contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unjust enrichment; 

constructive fraud and actual fraud.13 Each counterclaim sought as its remedy one-half of profits 

that the Ventures made based on sales of products embodying the inventions.14

 At the summary judgment stage, the court held that it was undisputed that Barrett had 

assigned his inventions under Section 3.2 of the Inventions Agreement “unless otherwise 

precluded by law from doing so,” but that it was “genuinely disputed whether Barrett was 

precluded under Section 2870 from assigning his inventions.”15 The question of whether Section 

2870 exempted the three inventions from the assignment clause therefore was tried to the jury.

At trial, the court instructed the jury on Section 2870 as follows:

 

10 See id. at 3.8. During the course of this case, the Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. 

Patent Application No. US20120304866A1 as U.S. Patent No. 8,858,688. See Docket No. 86 at 1 

n.1.

11 See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 23; Docket No. 66 at 13; Docket No. 87 at 17.

12 See Docket No. 1.

13 See Docket No. 11. 

14 See Docket No. 38 at 54-55, ¶¶ 8.1-8.5 (describing the relief sought).

15 See Docket No. 98 at 6 (citing DDB Techs. LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 517 F.3d 1284, 

1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 278 Filed 12/09/15 Page 4 of 10
5

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5. LABOR CODE § 2870

Venture claims that Mr. Barrett automatically assigned his rights to the MineTracer, 

Gas Scrubber and Gas Monitor inventions through the 2003 VDSI employee 

inventions agreement. The 2003 VDSI employee inventions agreement provides an 

exemption to assignment if an invention meets the provisions of California Labor 

Code section 2870. Mr. Barrett claims that the three inventions meet this exception.

To prove that the three inventions are exempted from assignment under Labor Code 

§ 2870, Mr. Barrett has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that 

each invention:

1. Was developed entirely on his own time, without using any of VDSI’s 

equipment, supplies or facilities;

2. Did not relate, at the time of the invention’s conception or reduction to practice, 

to VDSI’s business, or to VDSI’s actual or the demonstrably anticipated research or 

development and

3. Did not result from any work that Mr. Barrett performed for VDSI.16

The court separately instructed the jury on Barrett’s defense of “forfeiture,” another issue 

on which the court declined to grant summary judgment:17

6. FORFEITURE

Forfeiture means a failure to make a timely assertion of a right.18

As part of its verdict, the jury found it more likely true than not that Barrett had developed 

all three inventions “in whole or in part, on the time of [VDSI], or using any of VDSI’s equipment, 

supplies or facilities.”19 The jury also found that VDSI had “forfeited its right to ownership of [the 

three] inventions under the 2003 VDSI employee inventions agreement.”20 

 

16 See Docket No. 234 at 9.

17 See Docket No. 98 at 6, 10-11.

18 See Docket No. 234 at 10.

19 See Docket No. 238 at 3.

20 See id. at 4.

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 278 Filed 12/09/15 Page 5 of 10
6

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II.

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, and 2201. The parties 

consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) provides that, upon a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, 

the court may: (1) “allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict,” (2) “order a new 

trial,” or (3) “direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.” To grant a Rule 50(b) motion, the 

court must determine that “the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party, permits only one reasonable conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary to the jury’s.”22 In 

other words, to set aside the verdict, there must be an absence of “substantial evidence”—meaning 

“relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion”—to 

support the jury’s verdict.23 “Substantial evidence is more than a mere” scintilla;24 it constitutes 

“such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion 

even if it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence.”25 In reviewing a 

motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court “must view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.”26 “In ruling on 

such a motion, the trial court may not weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses in 

 

21 See Docket Nos. 14, 15.

22 Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., 427 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Pavao v. Pagay, 

307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 2002)).

23 Id.

24 Chisholm Bris. Farm Equip. Co. v. Int’l Harvester Co., 498 F.2d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 1974)

(quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).

25 Landes Constr. Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987).

26 Transbay Auto Serv., Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:09-cv-04932 SI, 2013 WL 

496098, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2013) (quoting Josephs v. Pacific Bell, 443 F.3d 1050, 1062 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (“We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—here, 

Josephs,—and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.”)).

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 278 Filed 12/09/15 Page 6 of 10
7

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the verdict.”27

III.

Applying the standards as set forth above, it is clear that the record lends insufficient 

support to the jury’s forfeiture finding.

First, by agreeing to the Inventions Agreement, Barrett immediately assigned his “entire 

right, title and interest in and to” the three inventions to VDSI, so long as Section 2870 did not bar 

the assignment.28 In order for Section 2870 to bar the assignment, Barrett had to have developed 

the inventions “entirely on his . . . own time without using [VDSI’s] equipment, supplies, facilities, 

or trade secret information.”29 The jury found, however, that Barrett had developed each invention 

“in whole or in part, on the time of [VDSI], or using any of VDSI’s equipment, supplies or 

facilities.”30 Because Section 2870 did not exempt any of the inventions from the assignment 

clause, the Inventions Agreement assigned Barrett’s entire right, title, and interest in and to all 

three inventions to VDSI. These rights then transferred to VCL by the similar automatic 

assignment clause in the Research and Development Services Agreement between VDSI and 

VCL.

31

Second, under the language of the Inventions Agreement, the assignment was automatic 

and occurred “by operation of law.”32 “If the contract expressly grants rights in future inventions, 

‘no further act [is] required once an invention [comes] into being,’ and ‘the transfer of title 

 

27 Id. (citing Mosesian v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 727 F.2d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 1984) 

(“Neither the district court nor this court may weigh the evidence or order a result it finds more 

reasonable if substantial evidence supports the jury verdict.”)).

28 Docket No. 7-4 at § 3.2.

29 Cal. Labor Code § 2870.

30 Docket No. 238 at 3.

31 See Docket No. 86-4 at § 3.6.

32 FilmTec Corp., 939 F.2d at 1573.

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 278 Filed 12/09/15 Page 7 of 10
8

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

[occurs] by operation of law.’”33 The Federal Circuit looks to the tense of an assignment clause to 

determine whether an assignment of patent rights is a present assignment, which requires “no 

further act . . . once an invention [comes] into being,”34 or a future assignment, which vests the 

promisee with equitable rights but not legal title to patents on the inventions.35 Present-tense 

language such as “[the inventor] agrees to grant and does hereby grant [all rights in future 

inventions]”36 or “[the employee] hereby conveys, transfers, and assigns to [employer] . . . all 

right, title and interest in and to Inventions”37 creates a present assignment, while contract

language requiring future action creates a future assignment.38 The Inventions Agreement 

assignment clause uses present tense language (“I hereby assign to [VDSI] . . . my entire right, title 

and interest”),39 and so Barrett’s right, title, and interest in the three inventions was assigned to 

VDSI “by operation of law”40 as each invention came into being, without any further act required 

on VDSI’s part.

41

 Put another way, there was nothing further for VDSI to “assert,” as the standard 

 

33 DDB Techs., L.L.C., 517 F.3d at 1290 (quoting FilmTec Corp. v. Allied-Signal Inc., 939 F.2d 

1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1991)); see also Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., 211 F.3d 1245, 1253 (Fed. 

Cir. 2000).

34 Id.

35 DDB Techs., L.L.C., 517 F.3d at 1290 (citing Arachnid, Inc., 939 F.2d at 1581).

36 FilmTec Corp., 939 F.2d at 1573 (emphasis added).

37 Speedplay, 211 F.3d at 1253 (emphasis added).

38 See, e.g., Arachnid, 939 F.2d at 1581 (an assignment clause providing that “all rights . . . will be 

assigned by [inventor]” merely obligated the inventor to grant rights in the future but did not vest 

legal title in the promisee) (emphasis added).

39 Docket No. 7-4 at § 3.2.

40 FilmTec Corp., 939 F.2d at 1573.

41 Barrett argues that the jury “never found that VDSI was automatically assigned [his] rights.” 

Docket No. 274 at 14. Barrett reads Section 3.1, the disclosure clause, and Section 3.2, the 

assignment clause, to mean that the inventions would be assigned only if Barrett actually disclosed 

the inventions. See id. at 15. However, the assignment clause is worded more broadly and states 

that Barret assigns his right, title, and interest “in and to any Invention [he is] required to disclose 

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 278 Filed 12/09/15 Page 8 of 10
9

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

for forfeiture under California law requires.

Third, even if forfeiture could potentially apply, Barrett fails to direct the court to any 

evidence of VDSI’s delay. He cites to no transcript pages and no trial exhibits to show that 

substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Rather, he only offers his characterizations of 

evidence, such as his interpretation of conversations between VDSI and VCL about the ownership

of the inventions.

42

 However, this is insufficient; Barrett has not identified any piece of evidence 

even suggesting that any of VDSI’s behavior was inconsistent with its rights under the Inventions 

Agreement.

A final point. Barrett repeatedly asserts that VDSI and VCL each claims ownership of the 

inventions and the resulting patents, and his opposition to the Ventures’ motion rests on this 

flawed interpretation of the case.

43

 From the very beginning of this case, however, the Ventures

have consistently maintained that Barrett assigned the inventions to VDSI under the Inventions 

Agreement, and that VDSI then assigned the inventions to VCL under the R&D Services 

Agreement.44 The Ventures never deviated from this position, and Barrett offers no evidence to 

the contrary. In any event, the jury specifically rejected the notion that Barrett and VCL ever 

formed any joint venture that would provide a means of transferring any rights to Barrett’s 

inventions directly from Barrett to VCL.

45

 

under Section 3.1,” without limiting the assignment only to the inventions he actually discloses. 

Docket No. 7-4 at § 3.2. The jury’s finding that Section 2870 does not apply to the three 

inventions thus means that Barrett assigned his rights in those inventions to VDSI.

42 See Docket No. 274 at 12-13.

43 See id. at 3-13.

44 See Docket No. 6 at ¶¶ 6, 17-22.

45 See Docket No. 238 at 5.

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 278 Filed 12/09/15 Page 9 of 10
10

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03384-HRL Document 278 Filed 12/09/15 Page 10 of 10