Turchik

Turchik v. M.A.G. Engineering & Mfg. Co. CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 25, 2014G047856California3,218 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

The trial court issued a lengthy statement of decision in this case, and we base our facts on the court’s findings. (Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 272, 277-278 [“The facts . . . are taken almost entirely from the trial court’s findings of fact. These findings are binding on this court unless unsupported by substantial evidence”].) Turchik invented a process of concentrating the gas escaping from a carbon dioxide cartridge into a burst of air. He called this process “Air Burst Technology.” He believed the process might be useful as part of a method of unclogging toilets, and applied for a patent for this “Air Burst Toilet Flush” idea. Lacking the manufacturing capability to exploit this plumbing idea, Turchik approached his uncle, Howard Allenbaugh, who was the owner of MAG, a small

3 company that produced security apparatus. In March 2002, the two men entered into a written agreement whereby Turchik assigned to MAG his “entire right, title, and interest” in the technology disclosed in his patent application and “all Letters Patent of the United States which may be granted thereon.” In consideration for that assignment, MAG agreed to…

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.