Frigi-Griffin, Inc. v. Leeds

• Decision Date: 18 May 1976
• Docket Number: FRIGI-GRIFFI,INC
• Citation: 383 N.Y.S.2d 339,52 A.D.2d 805
• Parties: , Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harry R. LEEDS and Tochem, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents, Unknown Defendant #1 et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 339

383 N.Y.S.2d 339

52 A.D.2d 805

FRIGI-GRIFFIN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.Harry R. LEEDS and Tochem, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants-RespondentsUnknownDefendant #1 et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

May 18, 1976.

O. G. Obermaier, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.

R. L. Halpern, Buffalo, N. L. Coch, New York City, for defendants-respondents.

Before MURPHY, J.P., and BIRNS, CAPOZZOLI, LANE and NUNEZ, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County,

Order, Supreme Court, New kyork County, entered November 28, 1975, granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as barred by the Statute of Limitations, unanimously modified on the law to the extent of reinstating the first four causes of action of the original complaint as against the individual defendant Leeds; granting the cross-motion to amend the complaint and add a fifth cause of action and allowing the plaintiff to replead as against all defendants with regard to the fourth cause of action in the original complaint, to the extent that the cause of action is based on the newly pleaded claim of a constructive trust, and otherwise affirmed without costs or disbursements.

Frigi-Griffin, Inc. is involved in the manufacture of contact lenses.Harry R. Leeds formed Frigi-Griffin and was a principal of the corporation.Leeds had developed materials for use in the manufacture of soft contact lenses, which ultimately resulted in his obtaining PatentNo. 3,621,079(the 079 patent).

In 1967, Frigi-Griffin was granted a license to deal in soft contact lens material and any mprovements made relating to it.Leeds, at the same time, entered into an employment agreement which provided that any ideas or improvements related to the business of Frigi-Griffin would become its exclusive property.The material originally developed by Leeds is claimed by him to have been the subject of the licensing agreement.He claims further that the 079 patent did not involve a development of the original material and was not subject to the terms of the agreement with Frigi-Griffin.

Demands were made of Leeds as late as April 1969 to adhere to the terms of his agreements.Leeds interpreted these demands to be directed towards assignment of the 079 patent to Frigi-Griffin, while Frigi-Griffin maintains that use and testing rather than ownership were in issue.Leeds was removed as a director of Frigi-Griffin in October 1969 and he subsequently refused to make the patent available to Frigi-Griffin.He formed Patent Structures, Inc., renamed it Torchem, Inc., and assigned the patent application to it in May 1970.Defendants Gold and Slosberg are officers of Torchem.

In May 1969, Frigi-Griffin brought suit against Leeds, which action was settled in May 1971.The agreement at settlement left in issue the ownership of certain patent applications (now the 079 patent).No further steps were taken until March 1975 when this action was instituted.The instant complaint contains four causes of action: The first is based on Leeds' breach of his fiduciary obligation in failing after the April 1969demand to assign his right to the (present) 079 patent; the second is based on alleged breach by Leeds of his employment contract; the third is based on the alleged breach of the 1967 licensing agreement; and the fourth seeks a declaratory judgment as to ownership of the patent.The first three causes of action also were against the balance of the defendants, alleging...