Question

Joanne, a software engineer, signed an employment contract with her soon to be new employer, Joy, Inc. In that employment contract was an arbitration clause, which read: "any disputes arising out of this contract of employment are subject to arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association." While working for Joy, Inc., Joanne created a software program that would improve the company's financial record keeping. Joanne claims personal ownership in all rights in the program and attempts to register the patent in her own name. Joy, Inc., claims the program was created as a result of Joanne's work for the company and therefore it belongs to the company. Disagreeing with this assessment, Joanne files suit in court asking for a Declaratory Judgment--essentially asking the court to Declare that she is the rightful owner the patent associated with the program. Should the court hear Joanne's lawsuit. Why or why not?

Answer 1

The court should not hear Joanne's lawsuit.

My reason for making the above conclusion is that the case is subject to arbitration as stated in the employment contract.

Secondly, Joanne lacks locus standi on the case because she cannot own the copyright from the intellectual property right arising from her work with Joy, Inc. as the program was created out of her work for the company. Therefore, the intellectual property right legally belongs to the company and not to Joanne. Her action is frivolous.

Explanation:

As an employee, Joanne lacks sufficient interest in instituting an action for copyright over an intellectual property right arising from her work with Joy, Inc. Secondly, Joanne was not forced to sign the contract that specified the choice of Arbitration over court proceedings in her employment contract.