{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "cnmi", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in the Northern Mariana Islands", "description": "The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has no employee-invention-assignment statute and no local invention case law found in our review. Its rules-of-decision statute, 7 CMC § 3401, makes the common law as expressed in the Restatements the rule of decision, so the predicted framework is the common-law employee-inventor default (hired-to-invent exception, employer shop right) — matching the federal patent baseline — and the treatment of a post-employment holdover clause is unsettled, with Restatement reasonableness the predicted test.", "state": "Northern Mariana Islands", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "The CNMI has no employee-invention-assignment statute and no local invention case law found in our review — every invention-specific rule here is a prediction, though an unusually well-anchored one, because 7 CMC § 3401 statutorily makes the common law as expressed in the Restatements the rule of decision; that reception rule imports the employee-inventor default (hired-to-invent exception, employer shop right), matching the federal patent baseline, and a post-employment holdover clause is unsettled, with Restatement reasonableness the predicted test.", "keyLaw": "No CNMI invention-assignment statute; 7 CMC § 3401 (Restatements as rules of decision); Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)", "statutoryCarveOut": "none", "defaultOwnership": "employee", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "unsettled", "carveOutScope": "The CNMI has no statutory own-time carve-out; an assignment clause is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the Restatement-expressed common-law default that 7 CMC § 3401 imports (employee-inventor default, hired-to-invent exception, employer shop right), and the federal patent and copyright overlay — and because no CNMI court has decided an employee-invention case in our review, every invention-specific application is predictive." }, "about": [ "CNMI invention assignment", "Northern Mariana Islands employee invention ownership", "Northern Mariana Islands no invention-assignment statute", "7 CMC section 3401 rules of decision", "CNMI Restatement rules of decision", "CNMI hired to invent", "CNMI shop right", "CNMI 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 a CNMI employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling — and no local invention law of any kind. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands has no employee-invention-assignment statute, so nothing voids an assignment of a true own-time, own-resource invention the way California or Washington law does. The one Commonwealth statute that shapes the analysis is 7 CMC § 3401, the rules-of-decision statute, which makes the common law as expressed in the Restatements the rule of decision whenever written law and local customary law are silent. An assignment clause is therefore bounded by the Restatement-expressed common law and ordinary contract limits, not by a legislative carve-out.", "sources": [ { "id": "cmc-3401-reception", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "7 CMC § 3401", "citation": "7 CMC § 3401.", "url": "https://cnmilaw.org/pdf/cmc_section/T7/3401.pdf", "proposition": "7 CMC § 3401 makes the common law as expressed in the Restatements the rules of decision in CNMI courts in the absence of written law or local customary law — a rule about where courts find the governing law, not a carve-out limiting what an invention-assignment clause may reach.", "verbatimQuote": "In all proceedings, the rules of the common law, as expressed in the restatements of the law approved by the American Law Institute and, to the extent not so expressed as generally understood and applied in the United States, shall be the rules of decision in the courts of the Commonwealth, in the absence of written law or local customary law to the contrary; provided, that no person shall be subject to criminal prosecution except under the written law of the Commonwealth.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi#src-cmc-3401-reception" }, { "id": "cda-rules-of-decision", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "In re Commonwealth Development Authority", "citation": "In re Commonwealth Development Authority, 2016 MP 4 (N. Mar. I. 2016).", "url": "https://cnmilaw.org/pdf/supreme/2016-MP-04.pdf", "proposition": "In re Commonwealth Development Authority states the 7 CMC § 3401 rule that, absent written or local customary law, the Restatements of the Law are the rules of decision in Commonwealth courts — the NMI Supreme Court's own formulation of the reception rule, announced in a case outside employment law.", "verbatimQuote": "In the absence of written law or local customary law, the Restatements of the Law “shall be the rules of decision in the courts of the Commonwealth.” 7 CMC § 3401.", "date": "2016-05-04", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi#src-cda-rules-of-decision" }, { "id": "aug-reception-analogy", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "August Healthcare Group, LLC v. Manglona", "citation": "August Healthcare Grp., LLC v. Manglona, No. 1:12-cv-00008, 2012 WL 12926085 (D. N. Mar. I. Oct. 12, 2012).", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nmid-1_12-cv-00008", "proposition": "August Healthcare, facing the same statutory silence for covenants not to compete that an employee-invention dispute would present, holds that the CNMI looks to the United States common law as expressed in the Restatements under 7 CMC § 3401.", "verbatimQuote": "There is no specific law, statute, or custom in the CNMI governing covenants not to compete. In the absence of written law or local customary law, the CNMI looks to the United States common law as expressed in the Restatements. See 7 N. Mar. I. Code § 3401.", "date": "2012-10-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi#src-aug-reception-analogy" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must a CNMI employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. A notice requirement of the kind California and Washington impose exists to alert the employee to a statutory own-time carve-out that limits the assignment. The CNMI has no invention-assignment statute at all, so there is no statutory line for a notice to mark. The only Commonwealth statute bearing on the question, 7 CMC § 3401, is addressed to courts — it tells them what rules of decision to apply — and imposes no employer notice or disclosure duty.", "sources": [ { "id": "cmc-3401-notice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "7 CMC § 3401", "citation": "7 CMC § 3401.", "url": "https://cnmilaw.org/pdf/cmc_section/T7/3401.pdf", "proposition": "7 CMC § 3401, the only Commonwealth statute bearing on employee-invention questions, is addressed to courts and imposes no employer notice or disclosure duty; with no invention-assignment statute there is no carve-out for a notice to mark.", "verbatimQuote": "In all proceedings, the rules of the common law, as expressed in the restatements of the law approved by the American Law Institute and, to the extent not so expressed as generally understood and applied in the United States, shall be the rules of decision in the courts of the Commonwealth, in the absence of written law or local customary law to the contrary; provided, that no person shall be subject to criminal prosecution except under the written law of the Commonwealth.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi#src-cmc-3401-notice" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in the Northern Mariana Islands?", "answerText": "The inventor, unless hired to invent — as a prediction anchored in 7 CMC § 3401, not a local holding. No CNMI decision addresses employee-invention ownership in our review. The federal patent baseline is that rights in an invention belong to the person who conceived it, with a narrow exception for the employee hired to invent, and the Restatement-expressed common law that § 3401 makes the rule of decision states the same default. The local and federal layers point the same way.", "sources": [ { "id": "pang-gapfill-ownership", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Pangelinan v. Pangelinan", "citation": "Pangelinan v. Pangelinan, 2024 MP 5.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10124676/pangelinan-v-pangelinan/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10124676/pangelinan-v-pangelinan/#:~:text=first%20look%20to%20local%20written,the%20Restatement%20fills%20the%20gaps.", "proposition": "Pangelinan describes the 7 CMC § 3401 cascade — courts first look to local written law, and where it is lacking the Restatement fills the gaps — the route by which the common-law employee-inventor default would become the CNMI rule of decision.", "verbatimQuote": "first look to local written law, which includes our case law adopting and/or adapting Restatement provisions. To the extent local written law is lacking, the Restatement fills the gaps.", "date": "2024-09-23", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi#src-pang-gapfill-ownership" }, { "id": "cda-no-local-law", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "In re Commonwealth Development Authority", "citation": "In re Commonwealth Development Authority, 2016 MP 4 (N. Mar. I. 2016).", "url": "https://cnmilaw.org/pdf/supreme/2016-MP-04.pdf", "proposition": "In re Commonwealth Development Authority shows the § 3401 cascade applied mechanically — the trial court properly referred to the Restatement because no written or local customary law addressed the question — the identical posture an employee-invention-ownership dispute would present in a CNMI court.", "verbatimQuote": "the trial court did not clearly err by referring to the Restatement because CDA has not identified, and we cannot find, any written or local customary law that addresses whether judicial confirmation of a foreclosure sale may be denied on the basis of the foreclosure sale price.", "date": "2016-05-04", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi#src-cda-no-local-law" }, { "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, 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/cnmi#src-stanford-inventor" }, { "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/cnmi#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in the CNMI?", "answerText": "Unsettled. No CNMI court has addressed a trailing or holdover invention-assignment clause — or any employee-invention question — in our review, and there is no statutory cap because there is no invention-assignment statute at all. The best-anchored prediction is that a CNMI court would treat a holdover clause as a post-employment restraint and test it under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts reasonableness rules that 7 CMC § 3401 imports; both local restraint-of-trade decisions ran exactly that analysis, though neither involved inventions.", "sources": [ { "id": "atalig-186-restraint", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Atalig v. M.I.C. Corp.", "citation": "Atalig v. M.I.C. Corp., 3 N. Mar. I. Commw. 270 (N. Mar. I. Commw. Trial Ct. 1987).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8669524/atalig-v-mic-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8669524/atalig-v-mic-corp/#:~:text=%5Ba%5D%20promise%20is%20in%20restraint,exercise%20of%20a%20gainful%20occupation.", "proposition": "Atalig v. M.I.C. Corp., quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 186(2), defines a promise in restraint of trade as one whose performance would limit competition in any business or restrict the promisor in a gainful occupation — a definition broad enough to reach a post-employment invention-assignment holdover clause.", "verbatimQuote": "[a] promise is in restraint of trade if its performance would limit competition in any business or restrict the promisor in the exercise of a gainful occupation.", "date": "1987-12-22", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi#src-atalig-186-restraint" }, { "id": "atalig-186-balancing", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Atalig v. M.I.C. Corp.", "citation": "Atalig v. M.I.C. Corp., 3 N. Mar. I. Commw. 270 (N. Mar. I. Commw. Trial Ct. 1987).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8669524/atalig-v-mic-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8669524/atalig-v-mic-corp/#:~:text=Account%20is%20taken%20of%20such,likely%20injury%20to%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Atalig, quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 186 comment a, weighs the protection a restraint affords the promisee's legitimate interests against the hardship to the promisor and the likely injury to the public — the balancing a CNMI court would be expected to run on a holdover clause.", "verbatimQuote": "Account is taken of such factors as the protection that it affords for the promisee's legitimate interests, the hardship that it imposes on the promisor, and the likely injury to the public.", "date": "1987-12-22", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi#src-atalig-186-balancing" }, { "id": "aug-188-application", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "August Healthcare Group, LLC v. Manglona", "citation": "August Healthcare Grp., LLC v. Manglona, No. 1:12-cv-00008, 2012 WL 12926085 (D. N. Mar. I. Oct. 12, 2012).", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nmid-1_12-cv-00008", "proposition": "August Healthcare applies Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188 to a post-employment restraint as CNMI law and expressly saves for another day the question whether continued employment is sufficient consideration for a restraint signed after hire.", "verbatimQuote": "the application of Section 188 of the Restatement is sufficient to address St. Michael’s request for a preliminary injunction and saves the issue of consideration for another day.", "date": "2012-10-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi#src-aug-188-application" }, { "id": "aug-livelihood", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "August Healthcare Group, LLC v. Manglona", "citation": "August Healthcare Grp., LLC v. Manglona, No. 1:12-cv-00008, 2012 WL 12926085 (D. N. Mar. I. Oct. 12, 2012).", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nmid-1_12-cv-00008", "proposition": "August Healthcare weighs the employees' ability to earn a livelihood in a small, specialized island market heavily against enforcement — the hardship limb of the Restatement balancing that would bear on any post-employment holdover restraint in the CNMI.", "verbatimQuote": "An injunction that bars Pelisamen and Takai from working for Priority Care would deprive the men of the ability to earn their livelihood in a highly specialized sector of health care on Saipan.", "date": "2012-10-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi#src-aug-livelihood" }, { "id": "aug-trade-secret-secrecy", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "August Healthcare Group, LLC v. Manglona", "citation": "August Healthcare Grp., LLC v. Manglona, No. 1:12-cv-00008, 2012 WL 12926085 (D. N. Mar. I. Oct. 12, 2012).", "url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nmid-1_12-cv-00008", "proposition": "August Healthcare, quoting Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1972), quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, states that the subject matter of a trade secret must be secret and that matters of public or general industry knowledge cannot be appropriated as secret — the threshold a holdover clause tied to confidential information must clear.", "verbatimQuote": "The subject matter of a trade secret must be secret. Matters of public knowledge or of general knowledge in an industry cannot be appropriated by one as his secret.", "date": "2012-10-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi#src-aug-trade-secret-secrecy" }, { "id": "cmc-3401-practice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "7 CMC § 3401", "citation": "7 CMC § 3401.", "url": "https://cnmilaw.org/pdf/cmc_section/T7/3401.pdf", "proposition": "7 CMC § 3401 supplies only a rule of decision pointing to the Restatements; no CNMI statute or decision creates invention-specific safe harbors, so drafting must assume general Restatement reasonableness review rather than any local safe harbor.", "verbatimQuote": "In all proceedings, the rules of the common law, as expressed in the restatements of the law approved by the American Law Institute and, to the extent not so expressed as generally understood and applied in the United States, shall be the rules of decision in the courts of the Commonwealth, in the absence of written law or local customary law to the contrary; provided, that no person shall be subject to criminal prosecution except under the written law of the Commonwealth.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/cnmi#src-cmc-3401-practice" } ] } ] } }