Ziarati
GE Medical Systems v. Ziarati
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Mokhtar Ziarati and Resonance Technology, Inc., appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of General Electric Company on its declaratory relief action to enforce an agreement regarding inventions made by Ziarati. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
(1) Ziarati and RTI first assert that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment against them on their statute of limitations defense. We agree. GE admits for purposes of summary judgment that in 1989 it knew that Ziarati had failed to assign the inventions to it and was exploiting them himself, which violated the Innovation Agreement. 1 GE did not bring this action until 1998. Clearly, that was beyond the California 2 four-year statute of limitations for a breach of a written contract. See Cal.Civ. Proc.Code § 337(1); Cochran v. Cochran, 56 Cal.App.4th 1115, 1120 , 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 337, 340 (1997). Moreover, GE did not even make a demand for an assignment within the time provided by the statute of limitations. See Bass v. Hueter, 205 Cal. 284, 287 , 270 P. 958, 959 (1928); Ginther v. Tilton, 206 Cal.App.2d 284, 285-86 , 23 Cal. Rptr. 601, 602 (1962); Ilse v. Burgess, 28…