From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Radiant Energy v. Roberts-Gordon, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1996
225 A.D.2d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Summary

In Radiant Energy Corp. v. Roberts-Gordon, Inc., 639 N.Y.S.2d 237, 238, 225 A.D.2d 1025, 1025 (4th Dep't 1996), the appeals court cast doubt on this principle by stating that "New York has not adopted the rule announced in" such cases as Froom, and held that officers of a corporation did not have the obligation to assign patents they invented during their employment because they did not have "sufficient control over the management of the corporation or exercised the power of a president or chief executive officer to come within that rule."

Summary of this case from Gasser v. Infanti Intern., Inc.

Opinion

March 8, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Howe, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiffs' rights as owners of a patent for an infrared radiation apparatus for de-icing aircraft. Plaintiffs sufficiently established a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm if injunctive relief is not granted and a balancing of the equities in their favor ( see, Aetna Ins. Co. v Capasso, 75 N.Y.2d 860, 862; Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 517; Town of Porter v Chem-Trol Pollution Servs., 60 A.D.2d 987, 988).

At this stage, we reject defendant's contention that plaintiffs cannot succeed on the merits. Defendant contends that, as officers of defendant corporation, plaintiffs Chew and Seel owed a fiduciary duty not to divert a corporate opportunity from defendant and an obligation to assign all rights to inventions and patents to the corporation ( see, Grip Nut Co. v Sharp, 150 F.2d 192, cert denied 326 U.S. 742; Kennedy v Wright, 676 F. Supp. 888, affd 867 F.2d 616; Great Lakes Press Corp. v Froom, 695 F. Supp. 1440). New York has not adopted the rule announced in those cases ( see, Cahill v Regan, 5 N.Y.2d 292), and, in any event, defendant failed to show that Chew or Seel had sufficient control over the management of the corporation or exercised the power of a president or chief executive officer to come within that rule.


Summaries of

Radiant Energy v. Roberts-Gordon, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 8, 1996
225 A.D.2d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

In Radiant Energy Corp. v. Roberts-Gordon, Inc., 639 N.Y.S.2d 237, 238, 225 A.D.2d 1025, 1025 (4th Dep't 1996), the appeals court cast doubt on this principle by stating that "New York has not adopted the rule announced in" such cases as Froom, and held that officers of a corporation did not have the obligation to assign patents they invented during their employment because they did not have "sufficient control over the management of the corporation or exercised the power of a president or chief executive officer to come within that rule."

Summary of this case from Gasser v. Infanti Intern., Inc.
Case details for

Radiant Energy v. Roberts-Gordon, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:RADIANT ENERGY CORPORATION et al., Respondents, v. ROBERTS-GORDON, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 8, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 1025 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
639 N.Y.S.2d 237

Citing Cases

Golden Eagle/Satellite Archery, Inc. v. Epling

The basis for that exception is the fiduciary duty owed by the president and chief executive officer to the…

Gasser v. Infanti Intern., Inc.

The court concluded that, by virtue of his position, and because he led the corporation to believe that the…