Milliken & Co. v. Morin
South Carolina Supreme Court
731 S.E.2d 288 (2012)
- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Brian Morin (defendant) worked for Milliken & Co. (plaintiff) as a research physicist in 1995, working on a team researching yarn. Morin and Milliken signed an employment contract that included a duty to assign ownership rights to Milliken for any inventions Morin created. The terms of the contract covered inventions that related to Milliken’s business or research and resulted from Morin’s work either at Milliken during his employment or within one year after ending his employment. Morin left Milliken in May 2004. Shortly thereafter, Morin started his own company and, in November 2004, filed for a patent for a fiber he invented. One of Morin’s goals while working at Milliken was to create a new type of fiber of the kind he patented. Milliken sued Morin in South Carolina state court for violating the invention-assignment clause of his employment contract, among other issues. A jury found for Milliken on the invention-assignment claim. Morin appealed, arguing that the clause was overbroad and unenforceable. The court of appeals affirmed, and the South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the contract’s invention-assignment clause was overboard as a matter of law.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hearn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
