MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL OF GREATER MIAMI, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CORDIS CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Mount Sinai Hospital appealed a jury verdict awarding patent rights to an implantable synchronous pacemaker to Cordis Corporation. The court affirmed, holding that conflicting evidence regarding whether Cordis was hired to develop the device required jury determination and that the patents protected specific electronic circuitry rather than the pacemaker itself.
The court held that the trial court correctly denied the motion for directed verdict because evidence was conflicting regarding whether Cordis was employed to devise the pacemaker, requiring jury determination. Additionally, the patents protected specific electronic circuitry and a remote ground system conceived by Cordis, not the pacemaker itself, making the jury's role appropriate.
[1] An employer is entitled to inventions made by an employee if the employee is hired for the express purpose of using their inventive faculty in the employer's interest.
[2] A motion for a directed verdict should be denied if the evidence regarding the employee's purpose in inventing is conflicting.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“if an employee is employed for the express purpose of using his inventive faculty in the interest of his employer, the latter is entitled to all inventions made by him in performance of the contract”
Establishes the legal standard for employer ownership of employee inventions under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMount Sinai Hospital hired Cordis Corporation to develop an implantable synchronous pacemaker. A dispute arose over ownership of the resulting patents…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Directed Verdict Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mount Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. appeals an adverse final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict for the defendant in this action for determination of the ownership of patent rights to an implantable synchronous pacemaker and other equitable relief.
The factual background of this case is set out in Mount Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Cordis Corporation, Fla. App.1973, 285 So. 2d 645 where this court reversed the summary judgment for the defendant, appellee herein Cordis Corporation, and remanded the cause for trial. Plaintiff, Mount Sinai Hospital, to prove its case introduced evidence in support of the theory that if an employee is employed for the express purpose of using his inventive faculty in the interest of his employer, the latter is entitled to all inventions made by him in performance of the contract. State Board of Education of Florida v. Bourne, 150 Fla. 323, 7 So. 2d 838 (1942); State v. Neal, 152 Fla. 582, 12 So. 2d 590 (1943).- Plaintiff moved for a partial directed verdict upon the ground that its entitlement to the synchronous implantable pacemaker and the respective patents were shown by the undisputed evidence to exist as a matter of law. The motion was denied and the cause submitted to the jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. This appeal ensued.
Plaintiff Hospital first contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict thereby refusing to hold, as a matter of law, that the invention, which the plaintiff had hired and paid the defendant to devise, rightfully belonged to it. We cannot agree.
The record illustrates that at the very least the evidence of whether defendant Cordis Corporation was employed to devise an implantable synchronous pacemaker was conflicting and, therefore, correctly submitted to the jury for its determination. We also note that the patents were issued to protect a unique phase of the electronic circuitry and simplified remote ground system conceived by the defendant and not a synchronous pacemaker. Thus, we find the trial judge was correct in denying the motion for partial directed verdict.
We have also considered plaintiff’s remaining points on appeal and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Cocoa v. Glynn Leffler, 762 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…extension could include creating a better way to do what the water treatment facility would do, including removing hydrogen sulfide, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Cf. Mount Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 329 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)(holding that in light of conflicting evidence on issues, question of whether cardiovascular instruments manufacturer was employed by hospital to devise an implantable synchronous pacemaker so that hospital was entitled to patent r…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Wayne M. Neal: THE Louisville Drying Mach. Co., 152 Fla. 582 (Fla. 1943)
- State Bd. OF Educ. OF Fla. v. Bourne, 150 Fla. 323 (Fla. 1942)
- Mount Sinai Hosp. OF Greater Miami, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 285 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)