Shum

Shum v. Intel Corp.

Good Law
630 F. Supp. 2d 1063·2009 WL 1227197·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41509
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 29, 2009C-02-3262-DLJCalifornia8,823 words

Opinion

Opinion

Jensen, J.

ORDER

On February 20, 2009, the Court heard oral argument on Defendants’ renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). Having considered the papers submitted, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ renewed motion for JMOL as to Shum’s state law claims, and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ renewed motion for JMOL as to inventorship.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Frank Shum (Shum) and defendant Jean-Marc Verdiell (Verdiell) are optical engineers. They met in 1994 when both worked at a company called SDL Technologies (SDL).

After leaving SDL, Shum and Verdiell incorporated Radiance Design, Inc. (Radiance) on April 22, 1999, intending to work in the field of optoelectronics. Shum and Verdiell were the sole and equal shareholders, with Verdiell as President and Treasurer and Shum as Vice President and Secretary. On the day of incorporation, a patent application related to optoelectronic technology was filed on behalf of Radiance. Marek Alboszta (Alboszta), a patent agent, had been hired by Radiance and prepared this patent application, which named Shum as the sole inventor.

While the patent…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.