Ferber v. Sterndent Corp.

New York Court of Appeals

Ferber v. Sterndent Corp.

412 N.E.2d 1311, 51 N.Y.2d 782, 433 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2644

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 7, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by56 cases

This text of 412 N.E.2d 1311 (Ferber v. Sterndent Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ferber v. Sterndent Corp., 412 N.E.2d 1311, 51 N.Y.2d 782, 433 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2644 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

As the court below found, plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to support his claim that the idea which he disclosed to defendants was novel either in the abstract or as to them. In order to successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff must come forward with some admissible proof that would require a trial of the material questions of fact on which his claim rests. Absent a showing of novelty, plaintiff’s [784]*784action to recover damages for illegal use of "confidentially disclosed ideas” must fail as a matter of law. (See Downey v General Foods Corp., 31 NY2d 56.)

Moreover, prior to any alleged use of plaintiffs idea by defendants, two patents had been issued to unrelated third parties for devices which encompassed the very concepts plaintiff alleges he disclosed to defendants. Therefore, even if we were to assume that plaintiffs idea was novel when disclosed, all novelty was lost with the issuance of these patents because they caused plaintiffs idea to fall into the public domain. (See Platzman v American Totalisator Co., 45 NY2d 910.) Therefore, summary judgment for defendants was properly granted.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

As the court below found, plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to support his claim that the idea which he disclosed to defendants was novel either in the abstract or as to them. In order to successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff must come forward with some admissible proof that would require a trial of the material questions of fact on which his claim rests. Absent a showing of novelty, plaintiff’s [784]*784action to recover damages for illegal use of "confidentially disclosed ideas” must fail as a matter of law. (See Downey v General Foods Corp., 31 NY2d 56.)

Moreover, prior to any alleged use of plaintiffs idea by defendants, two patents had been issued to unrelated third parties for devices which encompassed the very concepts plaintiff alleges he disclosed to defendants. Therefore, even if we were to assume that plaintiffs idea was novel when disclosed, all novelty was lost with the issuance of these patents because they caused plaintiffs idea to fall into the public domain. (See Platzman v American Totalisator Co., 45 NY2d 910.) Therefore, summary judgment for defendants was properly granted.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 N.E.2d 1311, 51 N.Y.2d 782, 433 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferber-v-sterndent-corp-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack