J. Michael Teets, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “[t]he test for an implied-in-fact contract, however, does not focus on whether the enterprise in the past engaged in inventive activities but whether the employee received an assignment on this occasion to invent.”
• “[A]n employer may obtain a shop right in employee inventions where it has contributed to the development of the invention.”
• “Even if hired for a general purpose, an employee with the specific task of developing a device or pro- cess may cede ownership of the invention from that task to the employer.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).