NanoLogix Inc (NNLX)

[parentsgratae]

Thank you for your post and it establishes what I previously stated: there is no cause of action because every fiduciary duty has been satisfied and the invention is advantageous to the company without which the company will not thrive. There is a Harvard lawyer on the BOD and I am sure he approved the actions of the CEO. My view. machiavelli's research is the definitive law:

"When you create an invention while employed, who owns the right to acquire a patent: you or your employer? The general rule is that you own the patent rights to the invention unless:

you signed an employment agreement assigning invention rights, or you were specifically hired (even without a written agreement) for your inventing skills or to create the invention."

AND,

"At a minimum, three general common law principles apply:

1. If an employee is not hired specifically for the purpose of inventing anything, then whatever he or she may invent during the course of employment will be owned by the employee. No implicit agreement to assign any patent to the employer arises. This general rule applies even if the invention is related to the employer’s business.

2. When an employee is hired to invent, but the employer has no more in mind than a desired result and does not give the employee instructions as to the means the employee must use to accomplish the particular result, then any resulting invention, even if related to the employer’s business, will again be owned by the employee.

3. If an employee is hired to create a specific invention and the employer can demonstrate that the means to bringing the idea into practical form were clearly spelled out for the employee, the employer will be deemed the owner of the invention where the invention is within the scope of the inventor’s employment and relates to the employer’s business."


Parents