The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff General Electric Company("Plaintiff") proceeds with an action against Defendant Thomas Wilkins ("Defendant") for damages and injunctive relief.
On October 13, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint ("FAC"). (Doc. 76). Defendant moved to dismiss the FAC on October 29, 2010. (Doc. 96). Plaintiff filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 10, 2011. (Doc. 144). Defendant replied on January 17, 2011. (Doc. 154). Defendant's motion to dismiss was heard on January 24, 2011.
Plaintiff is a developer of energy technologies and the holder of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,921,985 ("'985 Patent") and 6,924,565, ("the'565 patent") (collectively "the subject technology"). Defendant is listed as one of seven inventors of the '565 Patent and asserts that he is an unnamed co-inventor of the '985 Patent. Defendant claims an ownership interest in both patents.
Defendant was employed as an electrical engineer by Enron Wind
Corp. ("Enron"), Plaintiff's predecessor in interest, intermittently
from approximately April 1998 to May 2002. As a condition of his
employment with Enron, Defendant signed a Confidentiality and
Inventions Agreement ("C&I Agreement"). The C&I Agreement provided,
inter alia , that Defendant agreed "upon the
Company's request and without the need for further consideration, to
execute any and all documents and take such actions which may be
necessary in the Company's judgment to assign all rights to any
Invention Idea to the Company and to obtain patent or other
intellectual property protections for any Invention Idea." Under the
terms of the C&I Agreement, Defendant was obligated to assign any
interest in inventions created within the scope of his employment
duties to Plaintiff.
Defendant's job responsibilities while employed by Enron included the design, development, installation and testing of wind turbine generators. Enron filed for bankruptcy protection in 2002. In May 2002, Plaintiff purchased Enron's assets, including its intellectual property.
Defendant became Plaintiff's employee in May of 2002. A requirement of employment was that Defendant sign Plaintiff's Employee Innovation and Proprietary Information Agreement ("EIPI Agreement"). The EIPI Agreement provided, inter alia , that Defendant agreed "to disclose and assign to the Company (or as the Company may direct) as its exclusive property, all inventions, discoveries, innovations, improvements, trade secrets and technical or business information which [he] may solely or jointly develop, conceive, reduce to practice or author during the period of [his] employment." Under the terms of the EIPI Agreement, Defendant was obligated to assign any interest in inventions created within the scope of his employment to Plaintiff. Defendant was also requested to sign an acknowledgment that he was required to comply with the policies described in the guide: "GE Policies. Integrity: The Spirit the Letter of our Commitment" ("GE Policy Guide"), which also specified Defendant's obligations to protect and assign intellectual property Defendant worked on or invented in the course of his work for Defendant.
Defendant served as Plaintiff's lead power systems electrical engineer in California. His job was to develop new designs for wind turbine equipment. On May 31, 2002, Defendant first conceived the invention underlying the '565 Patent. Plaintiff does not allege when the invention underlying the '985 Patent was first conceived, or who first thought of it. Defendant voluntarily resigned from Plaintiff's employ in December 2002.
Plaintiff applied for the '565 and '985 Patents after Defendant terminated his employment with Plaintiff. In February 2004, Plaintiff requested that Defendant sign documents in connection with Plaintiff's application for the '565 Patent, but Defendant refused. Defendant has never signed an assignment expressly transferring his rights in the '565 Patent to Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff's requests that he do so. Plaintiff did not seek an assignment from Defendant in connection with the '985 Patent.
In 2009, Defendant purported to license the '985 Patent to one of Plaintiff's competitors. In May 2010, Defendant informed Plaintiff that he was offering to license the '565 Patent to others. Defendant refused Plaintiff's request to cease and desist such conduct.
Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate where the complaint
lacks sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't , 901 F.2d 696, 699
(9th Cir.1990). To sufficiently state a claim to relief and survive a
12(b) (6) motion, the pleading "does not need detailed factual
allegations" but the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167
L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Mere "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."
Id . Rather, there must be "enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face." Id . at
570. In other words, the "complaint must contain sufficient ...