In April 2001, plaintiff Donald MacLeod was hired by Emerson Retail Services Inc. He was ultimately given the title of field supervisor, in which his job was primarily commissioning refrigeration systems for supermarkets. MacLeod later resigned from the company in January 2010. He claimed that during his employment, he was not paid overtime wages. MacLeod sued his employers, Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Retail Services Inc. and Todd Zimmerman. MacLeod alleged that the defendants’ actions constituted a violation of the California Labor Code. The matter continued against Emerson Retail Services only. MacLeod contended that though he was a supervisor, he was classified improperly and was not an exempt employee, as he did not spend the majority of his time on supervisory activities. He claimed he was therefore entitled to the overtime wages. Emerson Retail Services contended that MacLeod was not entitled to overtime wages, as he was exempt. Emerson Retail Services filed a counterclaim against MacLeod, alleging patent infringement. Emerson Retail Services alleged that after leaving its employment, MacLeod formed his own company and used the same methods he used while employed with Emerson Retail Services. Thus, it claimed that MacLeod infringed a process patent that covered making a comparison between prior and present values of various set points of equipment. In response to the counterclaim, MacLeod claimed that the method he used at the new company did not compare present to prior values., MacLeod sought recovery of the amount of overtime wages he was entitled to under the statutory limitations of the Labor Code, which would have been the last 2.5 years of his employment. In the counterclaim, Emerson Retail Services sought recovery of several million dollars in damages for the alleged patent infringement.