The respondent, an independent contractor for the appellant, invented a valuable hinge.
The appellant had previously required the respondent to sign an Employee Technology Agreement assigning his rights to any inventions to the company, under threat of termination.
The trial judge found the agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and economic duress.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that continued employment and forbearance from dismissal constituted valid consideration.
The Court also found no economic duress, as the pressure to sign was not illegitimate given the appellant's bona fide belief in its ownership of the inventions and the respondent's opportunity to seek independent advice.
The appellant was declared the owner of the invention.