Summary 2012 WY 66

Summary of Decision May 10, 2012


[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: YALE PRESTON v. MARATHON OIL COMPANY and THOMAS SMITH

Docket Number: S-11-0166

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465579

Certified Question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, The Honorable William C. Bryson, Circuit Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Philip A. Nicholas and Mitchell H. Edwards, Nicholas & Tangeman, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Edwards.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Mark R. Ruppert, Joanna R. Vilos and Tyler J. Garrett, Holland & Hart LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Shane P. Coleman, Holland & Hart LLP, Billings, Montana. Argument by Mr. Ruppert.

Date of Decision: May 10, 2012

Facts: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit certified a question regarding the validity of an assignment of intellectual property rights given by Yale Preston to Marathon Oil Company without any additional consideration other than continued at-will employment.

Certified Question: Does continuing the employment of an existing at-will employee constitute adequate consideration to support an agreement containing an intellectual property-assignment provision?

The answer to the question is “yes,” continuation of at-will employment is sufficient consideration for an agreement requiring assignment of intellectual property.

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the court.