# Employee Invention Assignment in Arkansas[^about] 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. ## Can an Arkansas employer require assignment of every invention? {#statutory-carve-out} **Short answer.** 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 [^stanford-baseline]. Because there is no statute on point, the limits come from general principles rather than a legislative carve-out. A full-text review of the Arkansas Code surfaces no invention-, patent-, or intellectual-property-assignment provision anywhere, including the labor title. The only nearby statutes sit in Title 4: the 2015 noncompete statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-101, and the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-75-601 to -607. Neither regulates what an employment invention-assignment clause may reach — the noncompete statute governs covenant-not-to-compete agreements, and the trade-secrets act protects qualifying confidential information whether or not any assignment clause exists. The substantive default an Arkansas assignment clause is drafted against is the federal patent premise restated in *Stanford v. Roche*: absent an effective assignment, rights in an invention belong to the person who conceived it [^stanford-baseline]. "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor."[^stanford-baseline] The practical consequence is that an Arkansas employer can, in principle, contract for assignment more broadly than a California or Washington employer, because no statute carves own-time inventions out of the clause's reach. That breadth is not unlimited: an assignment clause is still an ordinary contract term, subject to general contract-law defenses, and a clause that operates as a restraint on the former employee's ability to work can draw Arkansas restraint-of-trade scrutiny — a risk taken up in the trailing-clause question below. But there is no statutory own-time safe harbor for the employee to invoke and no statutory ceiling for the drafter to code around. ## Must an Arkansas employer notify the employee? {#employee-notice} **Short answer.** 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 [^stanford-notice-baseline]. There is nothing to give notice of. A notice requirement exists in California and Washington precisely to alert the employee to a statutory own-time carve-out that limits the assignment; Arkansas has enacted no such carve-out, so there is no statutory line for a notice to mark. This is why the entry is marked not applicable rather than a bare no: the question presupposes a statutory carve-out that Arkansas does not have. What the employee keeps absent an agreement is set by federal law, not by any Arkansas notice regime. Ownership starts with the inventor [^stanford-notice-baseline]. "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor."[^stanford-notice-baseline] For a multistate employer the takeaway is the inverse of the notice states: an Arkansas employer neither has to give a § 2872-style notice nor can rely on one to cure an overbroad clause. Whether the assignment binds turns entirely on the contract language and the general limits on restraints, not on any statutory notice or disclosure formality. ## Who owns an invention by default in Arkansas? {#default-ownership} **Short answer.** 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 [^stanford-inventor][^dubilier-hired-to-invent]. *Stanford v. Roche* anchors the default. The Supreme Court held that even the Bayh-Dole Act did not displace the long-standing rule that an invention belongs to its inventor, treating that premise as the baseline against which any assignment is measured [^stanford-inventor]. "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor."[^stanford-inventor] Because ownership starts with the inventor, an employer's title is derivative — it exists only if and to the extent the employee assigned it. Any third-party interest must trace back to that inventor-grantor [^stanford-traceback]. "Thus, although others may acquire an interest in an invention, any such interest — as a general rule — must trace back to the inventor."[^stanford-traceback] The principal exception is the employee hired to invent. Under *United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp.*, an employee engaged to make a particular invention who succeeds during the term of service must assign the resulting patent to the employer [^dubilier-hired-to-invent]. "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."[^dubilier-hired-to-invent] Arkansas itself has added nothing to this framework: no Arkansas appellate decision found in our review articulates shop-right, hired-to-invent, or invention-assignment doctrine at all. The state's one prominent invention-adjacent case is not Arkansas law — it is *McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.*, a Federal Circuit decision on appeal from the Eastern District of Arkansas, and it happens to be the leading modern articulation of the shop right. The court described the inquiry as a totality-of-the-circumstances question [^mcelmurry-totality]. "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"[^mcelmurry-totality] What that inquiry yields matters as much as how it runs: the shop right is a use right, not a transfer of title. In *McElmurry* the utility never claimed ownership of the patent — the inventor's side kept title — and the question was only whether equity let the employer keep using the invention in its business [^mcelmurry-use-right]. "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."[^mcelmurry-use-right] One default runs the other way: for copyrightable works, the federal work-made-for-hire rule of 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 201(b) gives the employer ownership of works employees prepare within the scope of employment, without any assignment. For patentable inventions, though, ownership starts with the inventor, and because Arkansas has no statute filling the gap, the dependable path for an employer is a written present-assignment (*hereby assigns*) clause that transfers legal title automatically on conception rather than a future promise to assign that leaves the employer with a mere equitable claim. ## Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Arkansas? {#holdover-clause-limit} **Short answer.** 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 [^city-slickers-look-through][^lamb-reasonableness-test]. Start with what the statute actually covers. Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-101, enacted in 2015, makes a covenant not to compete enforceable if the employer has a protectable business interest and the covenant is limited in time and scope to no more than that interest requires; it lists intellectual property among the protectable interests, treats a two-year post-termination restriction as presumptively reasonable, and directs courts to reform an unreasonable covenant rather than strike it. But subsection (i)(1) expressly carves out other types of employer-employee agreements that do not concern competition or competitive work — including, in subdivision (i)(1)(D), the terms and conditions of an employment agreement — and subsection (i)(2) leaves existing common-law standards governing the excluded agreements. On its face, then, the statute does not reach an invention-assignment clause at all. (The paraphrase here tracks the code text as published through early 2024; a 2025 amendment, Act 232 of 2025, effective July 11, 2025, added a rule voiding physician noncompetes and does not bear on invention assignments.) The statute would matter only if a court first characterized a trailing assignment as concerning competition in operation, and Arkansas courts have shown they will look through labels. In *City Slickers, Inc. v. Douglas*, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed a finding that nondisclosure agreements which in operation kept a former employee out of his field for five years were really an overbroad restraint dressed as confidentiality provisions [^city-slickers-look-through]. "we agree that the nondisclosure agreements here constitute unreasonable and unlawful restraints of trade and are overly broad"[^city-slickers-look-through] The interest an overbroad trailing assignment would collide with is one Arkansas law has protected since well before the 2015 statute: what the employee carries away in his head stays his. *City Slickers* rested on the principle of *Witmer v. Arkansas Dailies, Inc.* [^city-slickers-witmer-knowledge]. "The experience and knowledge he had acquired as an employee in no sense becomes the property of his employer."[^city-slickers-witmer-knowledge] If a court did pull a trailing clause inside the restraint framework, the test it would face is reasonableness. *Lamb & Associates Packaging, Inc. v. Best*, the cleanest published Arkansas appellate decision applying § 4-75-101, states the standard [^lamb-reasonableness-test]. "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."[^lamb-reasonableness-test] *Lamb* also shows the framework has teeth: the court held the employer had no protectable business interest on the facts and affirmed the denial of injunctive relief [^lamb-unenforceable-holding]. "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."[^lamb-unenforceable-holding] Extending any of this to invention holdovers is a prediction, not a holding. No Arkansas decision found in our review has recharacterized an invention-assignment clause as a covenant not to compete, applied § 4-75-101 to one, or extended the statute's two-year presumption or mandatory-reformation duty to one; nor has any Arkansas decision found in our review tested a trailing assignment under the common-law restraint doctrine of *Witmer* and *City Slickers*. The two paths also diverge in outcome — inside the statute an unreasonable covenant is reformed, while the common-law cases struck the overbroad restraints before them — so even the consequence of overbreadth is uncertain. The safe reading is that a trailing clause tied to the employer's confidential information and trade secrets faces meaningfully less risk than an open-ended claim to whatever the former employee invents next, but the precise Arkansas standard for invention holdovers has not been decided. > [!NOTE] > **Practice note.** > > Do not assume an Arkansas employee works like a California or Washington one. There is no invention-assignment statute here, so there is no statutory carve-out to rely on and no notice safe harbor — ownership starts with the inventor, an employer's rights are only as good as the words that transfer them, and the dependable form is present-assignment (*hereby assigns*) language that passes title automatically rather than a future promise to assign [^stanford-traceback-practice]. Keep any trailing or holdover assignment narrow, short, and tied to the employer's confidential information and trade secrets, because Arkansas courts look through labels to strike overbroad terms that operate as restraints of trade [^city-slickers-look-through], and a clause recharacterized as a restraint must impose no greater restriction than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer [^lamb-reasonableness-test]. [^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-07-03. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Arkansas. This article synthesizes Arkansas primary law and is not legal advice from a Arkansas-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. CC BY 4.0. Cite as Steven Obiajulu, *Employee Invention Assignment in Arkansas*, OpenAgreements (last updated July 3, 2026), https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/arkansas. [^stanford-baseline]: **Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems** — "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor." *Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).* [^stanford-notice-baseline]: **Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems** — "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor." *Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).* [^stanford-inventor]: **Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems** — "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor." *Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).* [^dubilier-hired-to-invent]: **United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp.** — "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." *United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178 (1933).* [^stanford-traceback]: **Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems** — "Thus, although others may acquire an interest in an invention, any such interest — as a general rule — must trace back to the inventor." *Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).* [^mcelmurry-totality]: **McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.** — "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" *McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993).* [^mcelmurry-use-right]: **McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.** — "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." *McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993).* [^city-slickers-look-through]: **City Slickers, Inc. v. Douglas** — "we agree that the nondisclosure agreements here constitute unreasonable and unlawful restraints of trade and are overly broad" *City Slickers, Inc. v. Douglas, 73 Ark. App. 64, 40 S.W.3d 805 (2001).* [^lamb-reasonableness-test]: **Lamb & Associates Packaging, Inc. v. Best** — "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." *Lamb & Assocs. Packaging, Inc. v. Best, 2020 Ark. App. 62, 595 S.W.3d 378.* [^city-slickers-witmer-knowledge]: **City Slickers, Inc. v. Douglas (quoting Witmer v. Arkansas Dailies, Inc.)** — "The experience and knowledge he had acquired as an employee in no sense becomes the property of his employer." *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)).* [^lamb-unenforceable-holding]: **Lamb & Associates Packaging, Inc. v. Best** — "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." *Lamb & Assocs. Packaging, Inc. v. Best, 2020 Ark. App. 62, 595 S.W.3d 378.* [^stanford-traceback-practice]: **Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems** — "Thus, although others may acquire an interest in an invention, any such interest — as a general rule — must trace back to the inventor." *Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).*