{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arkansas", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arkansas.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arkansas", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arkansas/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arkansas/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "arkansas", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Arkansas", "description": "Arkansas has no employee-invention-assignment statute, so an assignment clause is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the common-law default rules, and the federal patent and copyright overlay — not a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement. Absent a written assignment the inventor owns under the federal inventor-first baseline (no Arkansas appellate decision on employee-invention ownership found in our review), and the enforceability of a post-employment holdover clause is unsettled because Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-101 reaches only covenants not to compete unless a court recharacterizes the clause as a restraint on competition.", "state": "Arkansas", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-03", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "Arkansas has no employee-invention-assignment statute, so an assignment clause is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the common-law default rules, and the federal patent and copyright overlay — not a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement; absent a written assignment the inventor owns under the federal inventor-first baseline (no Arkansas appellate decision on employee-invention ownership found in our review), and the enforceability of a post-employment holdover clause is unsettled because Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-101 governs only covenants not to compete and expressly excludes employment terms that do not concern competition, leaving recharacterization as a restraint of trade the only untested path to a limit.", "keyLaw": "No Arkansas invention-assignment statute; Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011); McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993)", "statutoryCarveOut": "none", "defaultOwnership": "employee", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "unsettled", "carveOutScope": "Arkansas has no statutory own-time carve-out; 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; Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-101 governs only covenant-not-to-compete agreements and expressly excludes employment terms that do not concern competition or competitive work." }, "about": [ "Arkansas invention assignment", "Arkansas no invention-assignment statute", "Arkansas employee invention ownership", "McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light", "Arkansas shop right", "Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-101", "Arkansas 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 Arkansas employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. Unlike California or Washington, Arkansas has no employee-invention-assignment statute — nothing that voids an assignment of a true own-time, own-resource invention and no statutory limit on what an assignment promise may capture — so a clause's reach is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default, and the federal patent and copyright overlay. The baseline that contract drafting operates against is federal, and it starts with the inventor.", "sources": [ { "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 an Arkansas assignment clause is measured against in the absence of any state invention-assignment statute.", "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/arkansas#src-stanford-baseline" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must an Arkansas employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Arkansas 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 background rule the employee holds without a contract is the federal inventor-first default, and anything the employer wants beyond it must come from the agreement itself.", "sources": [ { "id": "stanford-notice-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 states the federal inventor-first default that governs in Arkansas absent a contract; because no Arkansas statute creates a carve-out or a notice duty, any disclosure or assignment obligation arises from the agreement itself rather than from a statutory notice regime.", "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/arkansas#src-stanford-notice-baseline" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Arkansas?", "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 Arkansas 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; short of that, an employer that contributed time, tools, or materials gets at most a shop right — a license to use, not ownership.", "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/arkansas#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/arkansas#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.", "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/arkansas#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "mcelmurry-totality", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.", "citation": "McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/609217/max-c-mcelmurry-and-white-river-technologies-inc-v-arkansas-power/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/609217/max-c-mcelmurry-and-white-river-technologies-inc-v-arkansas-power/#:~:text=we%20believe%20that%20the%20proper,the%20totality%20of%20the%20circumstances", "proposition": "McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co. — a Federal Circuit decision arising from an Arkansas dispute, not an Arkansas state-court ruling — articulates the shop-right methodology of looking to the totality of the circumstances to decide whether an employer may use an employee-developed invention.", "verbatimQuote": "we believe that the proper methodology for determining whether an employer has acquired a “shop right” in a patented invention is to look to the totality of the circumstances", "date": "1993-06-16", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arkansas#src-mcelmurry-totality" }, { "id": "mcelmurry-use-right", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.", "citation": "McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/609217/max-c-mcelmurry-and-white-river-technologies-inc-v-arkansas-power/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/609217/max-c-mcelmurry-and-white-river-technologies-inc-v-arkansas-power/#:~:text=In%20such%20an%20analysis%2C%20one,that%20invention%20in%20his%20business.", "proposition": "McElmurry frames the shop right as an equity-and-fairness inquiry into whether the employer may use the invention in its business — a use right rather than a transfer of ownership; the employer in the case never claimed title, which stayed on the inventor side.", "verbatimQuote": "In such an analysis, one should look to such factors as the circumstances surrounding the development of the patented invention and the inventor’s activities respecting that invention, once developed, to determine whether equity and fairness demand that the employer be allowed to use that invention in his business.", "date": "1993-06-16", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arkansas#src-mcelmurry-use-right" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Arkansas?", "answerText": "Unsettled. No Arkansas decision found in our review addresses a trailing clause that reaches inventions first conceived after employment ends, and the one statute in the neighborhood does not facially apply — Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-101 governs covenant-not-to-compete agreements and expressly excludes other employer-employee agreements that do not concern competition or competitive work. The live risk is recharacterization: Arkansas courts look through a contract label to how the term operates, and an employment term that functions as a restraint of trade is tested for reasonableness.", "sources": [ { "id": "lamb-reasonableness-test", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Lamb & Associates Packaging, Inc. v. Best", "citation": "Lamb & Assocs. Packaging, Inc. v. Best, 2020 Ark. App. 62, 595 S.W.3d 378.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10606914/lamb-associates-packaging-inc-v-troy-w-best-james-best-and/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10606914/lamb-associates-packaging-inc-v-troy-w-best-james-best-and/#:~:text=The%20test%20of%20reasonableness%20of,to%20injure%20the%20public%20interest.", "proposition": "Lamb & Associates Packaging v. Best, a published Arkansas appellate decision applying Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-101, states the reasonableness test a trailing invention-assignment clause would face if a court treated it as a restraint of trade.", "verbatimQuote": "The test of reasonableness of contracts in restraint of trade is that the restraint imposed on one party must not be greater than is reasonably necessary for the protection of the other and not so great as to injure the public interest.", "date": "2020-01-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arkansas#src-lamb-reasonableness-test" }, { "id": "lamb-unenforceable-holding", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Lamb & Associates Packaging, Inc. v. Best", "citation": "Lamb & Assocs. Packaging, Inc. v. Best, 2020 Ark. App. 62, 595 S.W.3d 378.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10606914/lamb-associates-packaging-inc-v-troy-w-best-james-best-and/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10606914/lamb-associates-packaging-inc-v-troy-w-best-james-best-and/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20because%20we%20hold%20that,relief%20as%20to%20that%20clause.", "proposition": "Lamb & Associates Packaging v. Best shows the Arkansas restraint framework in operation — the court held the noncompete unenforceable for want of a protectable business interest and affirmed the denial of injunctive relief.", "verbatimQuote": "Accordingly, because we hold that the Agreement’s noncompetition clause was unenforceable, we affirm the circuit court’s order denying injunctive relief as to that clause.", "date": "2020-01-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arkansas#src-lamb-unenforceable-holding" }, { "id": "city-slickers-look-through", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "City Slickers, Inc. v. Douglas", "citation": "City Slickers, Inc. v. Douglas, 73 Ark. App. 64, 40 S.W.3d 805 (2001).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2337400/city-slickers-inc-v-douglas/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2337400/city-slickers-inc-v-douglas/#:~:text=we%20agree%20that%20the%20nondisclosure,trade%20and%20are%20overly%20broad", "proposition": "City Slickers v. Douglas shows that Arkansas courts look through a contract label to its operation — nondisclosure agreements that kept the former employee out of his field were held unreasonable and unlawful restraints of trade — the route by which a trailing invention assignment could be recharacterized and tested as a restraint.", "verbatimQuote": "we agree that the nondisclosure agreements here constitute unreasonable and unlawful restraints of trade and are overly broad", "date": "2001-03-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arkansas#src-city-slickers-look-through" }, { "id": "city-slickers-witmer-knowledge", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "City Slickers, Inc. v. Douglas (quoting Witmer v. Arkansas Dailies, Inc.)", "citation": "City Slickers, Inc. v. Douglas, 73 Ark. App. 64, 40 S.W.3d 805 (2001) (quoting Witmer v. Arkansas Dailies, Inc., 202 Ark. 470, 151 S.W.2d 971 (1941)).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2337400/city-slickers-inc-v-douglas/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2337400/city-slickers-inc-v-douglas/#:~:text=The%20experience%20and%20knowledge%20he,the%20property%20of%20his%20employer.", "proposition": "City Slickers, quoting Witmer v. Arkansas Dailies, states the Arkansas principle that the experience and knowledge an employee acquires do not become the property of the employer — the interest an overbroad trailing assignment would collide with.", "verbatimQuote": "The experience and knowledge he had acquired as an employee in no sense becomes the property of his employer.", "date": "2001-03-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arkansas#src-city-slickers-witmer-knowledge" }, { "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/arkansas#src-stanford-traceback-practice" } ] } ] } }