{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "arizona", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Arizona", "description": "Arizona has no employee-invention-assignment statute — the section sometimes cited for one (A.R.S. § 44-403) is the damages provision of the state trade-secrets act, and the 2013 bill that would have created a carve-out died without enactment — so an assignment clause is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the common-law default rules, and the federal patent and copyright overlay. Absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent, and a post-employment holdover clause's enforceability is unsettled, with Arizona's restrictive-covenant reasonableness framework the likely but untested measure.", "state": "Arizona", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-03", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "Arizona has no employee-invention-assignment statute — the section sometimes cited for one (A.R.S. § 44-403) is the damages provision of the state trade-secrets act, and the 2013 bill that would have created a carve-out died without enactment — so an assignment clause is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the common-law default rules, and the federal patent and copyright overlay; absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent, and the enforceability of a post-employment holdover clause is unsettled, with Arizona's restrictive-covenant reasonableness framework — blue-pencil severance only, no rewriting — the likely but untested measure.", "keyLaw": "No Arizona invention-assignment statute; San Manuel Copper Corp. v. Redmond, 8 Ariz. App. 214 (1968); Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)", "statutoryCarveOut": "none", "defaultOwnership": "employee", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "unsettled", "carveOutScope": "Arizona has no statutory own-time carve-out — A.R.S. § 44-403, sometimes cited as one, is the trade-secret damages section, and the carve-out proposed by 2013 HB 2632 was never enacted — so the reach of an assignment clause is limited only by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default (subject to the hired-to-invent exception and the employer's shop right), and the federal patent and copyright overlay." }, "about": [ "Arizona invention assignment", "Arizona no invention-assignment statute", "Arizona employee invention ownership", "A.R.S. § 44-403 invention assignment", "Arizona HB 2632 invention carve-out", "San Manuel Copper Corporation v. Redmond", "Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber", "Arizona holdover trailing assignment" ], "translations": [ { "language": "中文", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Español", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Português", "status": "planned" }, { "language": "Deutsch", "status": "planned" } ], "relatedForm": { "slug": "openagreements-confidentiality-invention-assignment-agreement" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "statutory-carve-out", "label": "Can the employer require assignment of every invention?", "heading": "Can an Arizona employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. Arizona has no employee-invention-assignment statute — no California-style own-time carve-out, no employer-ownership provision, and no notice requirement — so an assignment clause's reach is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default, and the federal patent and copyright overlay. The section most often miscited as an Arizona carve-out, A.R.S. § 44-403, is actually the damages provision of Arizona's trade-secrets act, and the baseline any assignment clause operates against is that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.", "sources": [ { "id": "az-44-403-damages", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-403", "citation": "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-403 (Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act).", "url": "https://www.azleg.gov/ars/44/00403.htm", "proposition": "A.R.S. § 44-403 supports the correction that the section sometimes cited as an Arizona invention-assignment carve-out is in fact the damages provision of the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act — its text addresses recovery for trade-secret misappropriation, including exemplary damages, and says nothing about invention assignment, carve-outs, or notice.", "verbatimQuote": "If willful and malicious misappropriation exists, the court may award exemplary damages in an amount not exceeding twice any award made under subsection A.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-az-44-403-damages" }, { "id": "az-23-204-current-text", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-204", "citation": "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-204.", "url": "https://www.azleg.gov/ars/23/00204.htm", "proposition": "A.R.S. § 23-204 supports the conclusion that Arizona's proposed invention-assignment carve-out was never enacted — 2013 HB 2632 would have placed a California-style carve-out and notice duty at this section number, but the section's current official text is an unrelated employee-benefits preemption statute.", "verbatimQuote": "Employee benefits; state preemption; exemption; definition", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-az-23-204-current-text" }, { "id": "stanford-baseline", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems", "citation": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/#:~:text=Since%201790%2C%20the%20patent%20law,invention%20belong%20to%20the%20inventor.", "proposition": "Stanford v. Roche confirms the long-standing premise of U.S. patent law that rights in an invention belong to the inventor, the baseline against which any assignment clause is measured.", "verbatimQuote": "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.", "date": "2011-06-06", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-stanford-baseline" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must an Arizona employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Arizona has no invention-assignment statute, there is no statutory carve-out to notify the employee about and no notice requirement of the kind California imposes under Labor Code § 2872 or Washington imposes under RCW 49.44.140(3). The only written-notice duty Arizona ever drafted was in 2013 HB 2632, which died without enactment — the section it targeted now holds an unrelated employee-benefits preemption statute.", "sources": [ { "id": "az-23-204-no-notice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-204", "citation": "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-204.", "url": "https://www.azleg.gov/ars/23/00204.htm", "proposition": "A.R.S. § 23-204 supports the conclusion that Arizona has no employee-notice statute for invention assignments — the only notice duty ever drafted was in 2013 HB 2632, which targeted this section number and died without enactment; the section's current official text is an unrelated employee-benefits preemption statute.", "verbatimQuote": "Employee benefits; state preemption; exemption; definition", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-az-23-204-no-notice" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Arizona?", "answerText": "The inventor, unless hired to invent. Absent a written assignment, the baseline under federal patent law — which governs who holds title to a patentable invention in Arizona as elsewhere — is that rights belong to the employee who conceived it. The narrow exception is the employee hired to invent, whose resulting invention the employer may claim.", "sources": [ { "id": "stanford-inventor", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems", "citation": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/#:~:text=Since%201790%2C%20the%20patent%20law,invention%20belong%20to%20the%20inventor.", "proposition": "Stanford v. Roche confirms the long-standing premise of U.S. patent law that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.", "verbatimQuote": "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.", "date": "2011-06-06", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-stanford-inventor" }, { "id": "stanford-traceback", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems", "citation": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20although%20others%20may%20acquire,trace%20back%20to%20the%20inventor.", "proposition": "Stanford v. Roche holds that although others may acquire an interest in an invention, that interest as a general rule must trace back to the inventor — so an employer takes title only through an assignment from the employee-inventor.", "verbatimQuote": "Thus, although others may acquire an interest in an invention, any such interest — as a general rule — must trace back to the inventor.", "date": "2011-06-06", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-stanford-traceback" }, { "id": "dubilier-hired-to-invent", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp.", "citation": "United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178 (1933).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1087847/united-states-v-dubilier-condenser-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1087847/united-states-v-dubilier-condenser-corp/#:~:text=One%20employed%20to%20make%20an,his%20employer%20any%20patent%20obtained.", "proposition": "United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. holds that an employee hired to make an invention who succeeds during the term of service is bound to assign the resulting patent to the employer; short of that, the employer's remedy for an invention made with its time and materials is an equitable shop right, not ownership.", "verbatimQuote": "One employed to make an invention, who succeeds, during his term of service, in accomplishing that task, is bound to assign to his employer any patent obtained.", "date": "1933-05-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "san-manuel-unjust-enrichment", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "San Manuel Copper Corporation v. Redmond", "citation": "San Manuel Copper Corp. v. Redmond, 8 Ariz. App. 214, 445 P.2d 162 (Ct. App. 1968).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1294446/san-manuel-copper-corporation-v-redmond/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1294446/san-manuel-copper-corporation-v-redmond/#:~:text=We%20do%20not%20believe%20it,of%20an%20invention%20or%20idea.", "proposition": "San Manuel Copper Corp. v. Redmond, Arizona's closest appellate decision on employee inventions, sustained an employee-inventor's unjust-enrichment claim — without requiring proof of fraud — where the employer adopted his process without paying, treating the employee as the owner whose idea the employer must pay to use absent a contract.", "verbatimQuote": "We do not believe it is necessary to show fraud in order to recover for unjust enrichment in the prepatent use of an invention or idea.", "date": "1968-09-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-san-manuel-unjust-enrichment" }, { "id": "san-manuel-inventor-right", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "San Manuel Copper Corporation v. Redmond", "citation": "San Manuel Copper Corp. v. Redmond, 8 Ariz. App. 214, 445 P.2d 162 (Ct. App. 1968) (quoting 69 C.J.S. Patents § 2).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1294446/san-manuel-copper-corporation-v-redmond/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1294446/san-manuel-copper-corporation-v-redmond/#:~:text=An%20inventor%20has%20a%20natural,sell%20his%20invention%20or%20discovery.", "proposition": "San Manuel Copper Corp. v. Redmond, quoting 69 C.J.S. Patents § 2, invoked the common-law premise that an inventor has a natural right to make, use, and sell the invention — the inventor-first baseline an Arizona court starts from absent an assignment.", "verbatimQuote": "An inventor has a natural right, recognized by the common law, separate from, and independent of, any constitutional or statutory provision, or any patent grant, to make, use, and sell his invention or discovery.", "date": "1968-09-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-san-manuel-inventor-right" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Arizona?", "answerText": "Unsettled. No Arizona decision found in our review squarely decides whether a trailing clause reaching inventions first conceived after employment ends is enforceable, and there is no statutory temporal cap because there is no invention-assignment statute at all. What Arizona does supply is a well-developed restrictive-covenant reasonableness framework, so a court would most likely test an aggressive holdover clause as a restraint under that framework — but applying it to invention holdovers is a prediction, not a holding.", "sources": [ { "id": "farber-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber", "citation": "Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363, 982 P.2d 1277 (1999).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1253291/valley-medical-specialists-v-farber/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1253291/valley-medical-specialists-v-farber/#:~:text=A%20restriction%20is%20unreasonable%20and,likely%20injury%20to%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber states Arizona's general reasonableness test for restraints on departing employees — a restriction will not be enforced if it is greater than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest or if that interest is outweighed by the hardship to the employee and the likely injury to the public — the framework a court would most likely borrow for an invention-holdover clause, though no Arizona case has applied it to one.", "verbatimQuote": "A restriction is unreasonable and thus will not be enforced: (1) if the restraint is greater than necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interest; or (2) if that interest is outweighed by the hardship to the employee and the likely injury to the public.", "date": "1999-06-18", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-farber-reasonableness" }, { "id": "farber-no-rewrite", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber", "citation": "Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363, 982 P.2d 1277 (1999).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1253291/valley-medical-specialists-v-farber/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1253291/valley-medical-specialists-v-farber/#:~:text=Although%20we%20will%20tolerate%20ignoring,add%20terms%20or%20rewrite%20provisions.", "proposition": "Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber states Arizona's blue-pencil-only rule — courts will tolerate ignoring grammatically severable portions of a covenant but will not add terms or rewrite provisions — so an overbroad restraint is more likely to fall than to be judicially narrowed.", "verbatimQuote": "Although we will tolerate ignoring severable portions of a covenant to make it more reasonable, we will not permit courts to add terms or rewrite provisions.", "date": "1999-06-18", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-farber-no-rewrite" }, { "id": "az-12-541-one-year", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541", "citation": "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541.", "url": "https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00541.htm", "proposition": "A.R.S. § 12-541 imposes a one-year limitations period on the actions it lists, which include breach of an employment contract — so an invention-assignment enforcement action sounding in employment-contract breach likely faces a one-year clock in Arizona.", "verbatimQuote": "There shall be commenced and prosecuted within one year after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, the following actions:", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-az-12-541-one-year" }, { "id": "az-12-541-employment-contracts", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541(3)", "citation": "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-541(3).", "url": "https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00541.htm", "proposition": "A.R.S. § 12-541(3) places actions for breach of an oral or written employment contract within the one-year limitations period, the subdivision that would likely capture a contract claim to enforce an employee invention-assignment clause.", "verbatimQuote": "For breach of an oral or written employment contract including contract actions based on employee handbooks or policy manuals that do not specify a time period in which to bring an action.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-az-12-541-employment-contracts" }, { "id": "stanford-traceback-practice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems", "citation": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20although%20others%20may%20acquire,trace%20back%20to%20the%20inventor.", "proposition": "Stanford v. Roche holds that although others may acquire an interest in an invention, that interest as a general rule must trace back to the inventor — so an employer takes title only through an assignment from the employee-inventor.", "verbatimQuote": "Thus, although others may acquire an interest in an invention, any such interest — as a general rule — must trace back to the inventor.", "date": "2011-06-06", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-stanford-traceback-practice" }, { "id": "az-23-204-current-text-practice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-204", "citation": "Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-204.", "url": "https://www.azleg.gov/ars/23/00204.htm", "proposition": "A.R.S. § 23-204 supports the conclusion that Arizona's proposed invention-assignment carve-out and notice duty (2013 HB 2632) were never enacted — the section the bill targeted now holds an unrelated employee-benefits preemption statute, so there is no statutory carve-out or notice safe harbor to rely on.", "verbatimQuote": "Employee benefits; state preemption; exemption; definition", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arizona#src-az-23-204-current-text-practice" } ] } ] } }