{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "colorado", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Colorado", "description": "Colorado has no employee-invention-assignment statute — no California-style own-time carve-out and no notice requirement — so an assignment clause is bounded by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default, and the federal patent overlay. Absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent, and a post-employment holdover clause would most likely be tested under Colorado's reasonableness rule for covenants not to compete, now layered with C.R.S. § 8-2-113's void-unless-excepted regime, though no Colorado decision found in our review has applied § 8-2-113 to a holdover invention assignment.", "state": "Colorado", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "Colorado has no employee-invention-assignment statute, so there is no own-time carve-out and no notice requirement — an assignment clause is bounded by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default (with the hired-to-invent exception and the employer's shop right), and the federal patent overlay; a post-employment holdover clause would most likely be tested under Colorado's well-settled reasonableness rule for covenants not to compete, layered since August 10, 2022 with C.R.S. § 8-2-113's void-unless-excepted regime for such covenants, although no Colorado decision found in our review has applied § 8-2-113 to a holdover invention-assignment clause specifically.", "keyLaw": "No Colorado invention-assignment statute; Hewett v. Samsonite Corp., 507 P.2d 1119 (Colo. App. 1973); C.R.S. § 8-2-113", "statutoryCarveOut": "none", "defaultOwnership": "employee", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "reasonablenessOnly", "carveOutScope": "Colorado 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), the federal patent overlay, and — where the clause operates as a post-employment restraint — Colorado's reasonableness rule and C.R.S. § 8-2-113's restrictions on covenants not to compete." }, "about": [ "Colorado invention assignment", "Colorado no invention-assignment statute", "Colorado employee invention ownership", "Hewett v. Samsonite Corporation", "Scott System, Inc. v. Scott", "Colorado hired to invent", "Colorado shop right", "Colorado holdover trailing assignment", "C.R.S. § 8-2-113 restrictive covenants" ], "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 Colorado employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. Unlike California or New York, Colorado has no employee-invention-assignment statute — nothing that voids an assignment of a true own-time, own-resource invention — so an assignment clause's reach is bounded by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default, and the federal patent overlay. The one Colorado-specific outer limit is restraint-of-trade law — where an assignment clause operates as a post-employment restraint, C.R.S. § 8-2-113 makes covenants not to compete void unless a statutory exception applies.", "sources": [ { "id": "co-8-2-113-void-carveout", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113", "citation": "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113(2)(a) (2025).", "url": "https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-08.pdf", "proposition": "C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(a) makes a covenant not to compete that restricts the right of an individual to receive compensation for performance of labor void except as subsections (2)(b), (2)(d), and (3) of the section provide — the general restraint-of-trade bound an aggressive assignment clause would face in Colorado if it operates as a post-employment restraint.", "verbatimQuote": "Except as provided in subsections (2)(b), (2)(d), and (3) of this section, a covenant not to compete that restricts the right of an individual to receive compensation for performance of labor is void.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-co-8-2-113-void-carveout" }, { "id": "hewett-express-agreement-carveout", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp.", "citation": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp., 32 Colo. App. 150, 507 P.2d 1119 (1973).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1153604/hewett-v-samsonite-corporation/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1153604/hewett-v-samsonite-corporation/#:~:text=In%20the%20case%20at%20hand,rights%20to%20inventions%20or%20patents.", "proposition": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp. denied the employer any claim to an employee's invention where the employee was neither hired nor paid to invent and had signed no express assignment — so in Colorado the assignment clause itself, not a statute, defines what the employer may claim.", "verbatimQuote": "In the case at hand Hewett was neither hired nor paid to invent, and he had not signed any express agreement as some of Samsonite's employees were required to do whereby Samsonite would be entitled to a conveyance or assignment of the employees' rights to inventions or patents.", "date": "1973-03-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-hewett-express-agreement-carveout" }, { "id": "hewett-consideration-carveout", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp.", "citation": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp., 32 Colo. App. 150, 507 P.2d 1119 (1973).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1153604/hewett-v-samsonite-corporation/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1153604/hewett-v-samsonite-corporation/#:~:text=we%20find%20none%20to%20bolster,of%20invention%20or%20patent%20rights.", "proposition": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp. holds that mere continuation of already-bargained-for employment is not sufficient consideration to support an assignment of invention or patent rights — a contract-law limit on imposing an assignment mid-employment in Colorado.", "verbatimQuote": "we find none to bolster Samsonite's contention that continuation of employment, such employment already having been mutually bargained for, is sufficient consideration to support an assignment of invention or patent rights.", "date": "1973-03-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-hewett-consideration-carveout" }, { "id": "stanford-baseline-carveout", "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/colorado#src-stanford-baseline-carveout" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must a Colorado employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Colorado 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). What Colorado enforces instead is contractual: the employer takes title to an employee invention only through a plain and unambiguous contract obligation.", "sources": [ { "id": "hewett-contract-obligation-notice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp.", "citation": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp., 32 Colo. App. 150, 507 P.2d 1119 (1973).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1153604/hewett-v-samsonite-corporation/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1153604/hewett-v-samsonite-corporation/#:~:text=Though%20shop%20rights%20have%20accrued,unambiguous%20contract%20obligation%20by%20Hewett.", "proposition": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp. holds that even accrued shop rights pass no title to an employee invention absent a plain and unambiguous contract obligation — so in Colorado any assignment duty arises from the agreement itself rather than from a notice-requiring statute.", "verbatimQuote": "Though shop rights have accrued to Samsonite, no title to such invention passed to it by virtue of such rights in the absence of a plain and unambiguous contract obligation by Hewett.", "date": "1973-03-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-hewett-contract-obligation-notice" }, { "id": "co-8-2-113-notice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113", "citation": "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113(4)(a) (2025).", "url": "https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-08.pdf", "proposition": "C.R.S. § 8-2-113(4)(a) voids an otherwise-permissible covenant not to compete unless separate notice of the covenant and its terms is given — before the offer is accepted for a prospective worker, or at least fourteen days in advance for a current worker — a restrictive-covenant formality distinct from any invention-assignment notice.", "verbatimQuote": "Any covenant not to compete that is otherwise permissible under subsection (2) or (3) of this section is void unless notice of the covenant not to compete and the terms of the covenant not to compete are provided to:", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-co-8-2-113-notice" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Colorado?", "answerText": "The inventor, unless hired to invent. Absent a written assignment, Colorado follows the common-law rule that an invention is the property of the inventor who conceived, developed, and perfected it, and mere employment does not by itself require assignment to the employer. The exception is the employee whose job duties include inventing or solving the particular problem the invention answers.", "sources": [ { "id": "scott-inventor-default", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Scott System, Inc. v. Scott", "citation": "Scott System, Inc. v. Scott, 996 P.2d 775 (Colo. App. 2000).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1316345/scott-system-inc-v-scott/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1316345/scott-system-inc-v-scott/#:~:text=Generally%2C%20an%20invention%20is%20the,patent%20rights%20to%20the%20employer.", "proposition": "Scott System, Inc. v. Scott states Colorado's common-law default that an invention is the property of the inventor who conceived, developed, and perfected it, and that employment alone does not require assignment to the employer.", "verbatimQuote": "Generally, an invention is the property of the inventor who conceived, developed, and perfected it. Hence, the mere fact that the inventor was employed by another at the time of the invention does not mean that that inventor is required to assign the patent rights to the employer.", "date": "2000-01-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-scott-inventor-default" }, { "id": "scott-hired-to-invent", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Scott System, Inc. v. Scott", "citation": "Scott System, Inc. v. Scott, 996 P.2d 775 (Colo. App. 2000).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1316345/scott-system-inc-v-scott/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1316345/scott-system-inc-v-scott/#:~:text=If%20an%20employee%E2%80%99s%20job%20duties,responsibilities%20belongs%20to%20the%20employer.", "proposition": "Scott System, Inc. v. Scott frames Colorado's hired-to-invent exception functionally — an invention created while performing job duties that include inventing or solving the particular problem belongs to the employer.", "verbatimQuote": "If an employee’s job duties include the responsibility for inventing or for solving a particular problem that requires invention, any invention created by that employee during the performance of those responsibilities belongs to the employer.", "date": "2000-01-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-scott-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "hewett-not-hired-ownership", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp.", "citation": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp., 32 Colo. App. 150, 507 P.2d 1119 (1973).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1153604/hewett-v-samsonite-corporation/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1153604/hewett-v-samsonite-corporation/#:~:text=In%20the%20case%20at%20hand,rights%20to%20inventions%20or%20patents.", "proposition": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp. holds that an employee who was neither hired nor paid to invent and signed no express assignment owns his invention — the employee-ownership default for general employees in Colorado.", "verbatimQuote": "In the case at hand Hewett was neither hired nor paid to invent, and he had not signed any express agreement as some of Samsonite's employees were required to do whereby Samsonite would be entitled to a conveyance or assignment of the employees' rights to inventions or patents.", "date": "1973-03-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-hewett-not-hired-ownership" }, { "id": "hewett-shop-right-ownership", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp.", "citation": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp., 32 Colo. App. 150, 507 P.2d 1119 (1973).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1153604/hewett-v-samsonite-corporation/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1153604/hewett-v-samsonite-corporation/#:~:text=Though%20shop%20rights%20have%20accrued,unambiguous%20contract%20obligation%20by%20Hewett.", "proposition": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp. holds that a shop right earned through the employee's use of company time and materials is a license to use the invention, not title — no ownership passes absent a plain and unambiguous contract obligation.", "verbatimQuote": "Though shop rights have accrued to Samsonite, no title to such invention passed to it by virtue of such rights in the absence of a plain and unambiguous contract obligation by Hewett.", "date": "1973-03-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-hewett-shop-right-ownership" }, { "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/colorado#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "stanford-inventor-default", "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, so an employer's title is derivative of an assignment from the employee-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/colorado#src-stanford-inventor-default" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Colorado?", "answerText": "Most likely tested for reasonableness, but the invention-specific application is undecided. No Colorado decision found in our review has addressed a post-employment holdover invention-assignment clause, and none has applied C.R.S. § 8-2-113 to one. What Colorado does have is a well-settled reasonableness rule for covenants not to compete and, for agreements entered into on or after August 10, 2022, a statute that voids such covenants unless the worker is highly compensated and the restraint is no broader than reasonably necessary to protect trade secrets. That combined framework is what a Colorado court would most likely reach for if asked to enforce a clause sweeping in inventions conceived after employment ends.", "sources": [ { "id": "zeff-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Zeff, Farrington & Associates, Inc. v. Farrington", "citation": "Zeff, Farrington & Assocs., Inc. v. Farrington, 168 Colo. 508, 449 P.2d 813 (1969).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1345442/zeff-farrington-associates-inc-v-farrington/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1345442/zeff-farrington-associates-inc-v-farrington/#:~:text=The%20rule%20is%20well%2Dsettled%20in,the%20facts%20of%20each%20case.", "proposition": "Zeff, Farrington & Associates, Inc. v. Farrington states the Colorado Supreme Court's well-settled rule that reasonable covenants not to compete will be enforced and that reasonableness depends on the facts of each case — the common-law standard a holdover assignment clause would most likely be measured against.", "verbatimQuote": "The rule is well-settled in Colorado that reasonable covenants not to compete will be enforced and that what is reasonable depends upon the facts of each case.", "date": "1969-01-27", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-zeff-reasonableness" }, { "id": "co-8-2-113-intent-holdover", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113", "citation": "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113(1) (2025).", "url": "https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-08.pdf", "proposition": "C.R.S. § 8-2-113(1) expressly preserves pre-August 10, 2022 state and federal case law defining what counts as a prohibited covenant not to compete and how a trade-secret covenant must be tailored — so Colorado's older reasonableness case law continues to operate inside the rewritten statutory regime.", "verbatimQuote": "The general assembly intends to preserve existing state and federal case law in effect before August 10, 2022, that: (a) Defines what counts as a covenant not to compete that is prohibited by this section; and (b) Specifies the extent to which a covenant not to compete for the protection of trade secrets must be tailored in scope in order to be enforceable under this section.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-co-8-2-113-intent-holdover" }, { "id": "national-graphics-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "National Graphics Co. v. Dilley", "citation": "Nat'l Graphics Co. v. Dilley, 681 P.2d 546 (Colo. App. 1984).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1397044/national-graphics-company-v-dilley/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1397044/national-graphics-company-v-dilley/#:~:text=We%20conclude%20that%20even%20if,both%20duration%20and%20geographic%20scope.", "proposition": "National Graphics Co. v. Dilley holds that even a covenant not void under § 8-2-113 must satisfy the rule of reasonableness as to duration and geographic scope — clearing the statute is necessary but not sufficient for enforcement in Colorado.", "verbatimQuote": "We conclude that even if a non-competition clause is not void under § 8-2-113, C.R.S., to be enforceable it must satisfy the rule of reasonableness as to both duration and geographic scope.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-national-graphics-reasonableness" }, { "id": "co-8-2-113-hce-holdover", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113", "citation": "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113(2)(b) (2025).", "url": "https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-08.pdf", "proposition": "C.R.S. § 8-2-113(2)(b) exempts from the voidness rule only covenants governing individuals who meet the highly-compensated threshold at signing and at enforcement, and only where the covenant protects trade secrets and is no broader than reasonably necessary — and, as amended in 2025, never a covenant restricting the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, or dentistry, whatever the individual earns. This is the exception a holdover assignment clause would have to fit if characterized as a covenant not to compete.", "verbatimQuote": "Except for a covenant not to compete that restricts the practice of medicine, the practice of advanced practice registered nursing, or the practice of dentistry in this state, this subsection (2) does not apply to a covenant not to compete governing an individual who, at the time the covenant not to compete is entered into and at the time it is enforced, earns an amount of annualized cash compensation equivalent to or greater than the threshold amount for highly compensated workers, if the covenant not to compete is for the protection of trade secrets and is no broader than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest in protecting trade secrets.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-co-8-2-113-hce-holdover" }, { "id": "co-8-2-113-choice-of-law", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113", "citation": "Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-2-113(6) (2025).", "url": "https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-08.pdf", "proposition": "C.R.S. § 8-2-113(6) makes Colorado law govern the enforceability of a covenant not to compete for a worker who primarily resided and worked in Colorado at termination, notwithstanding any contrary contractual choice-of-law provision — and bars requiring such a worker to adjudicate enforceability outside Colorado.", "verbatimQuote": "Notwithstanding any contractual provision to the contrary, Colorado law governs the enforceability of a covenant not to compete for a worker who, at the time of termination of employment, primarily resided and worked in Colorado.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-co-8-2-113-choice-of-law" }, { "id": "hewett-contract-obligation-practice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp.", "citation": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp., 32 Colo. App. 150, 507 P.2d 1119 (1973).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1153604/hewett-v-samsonite-corporation/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1153604/hewett-v-samsonite-corporation/#:~:text=Though%20shop%20rights%20have%20accrued,unambiguous%20contract%20obligation%20by%20Hewett.", "proposition": "Hewett v. Samsonite Corp. holds that even accrued shop rights pass no title to an employee invention absent a plain and unambiguous contract obligation — so in Colorado any assignment duty arises from the agreement itself rather than from a notice-requiring statute.", "verbatimQuote": "Though shop rights have accrued to Samsonite, no title to such invention passed to it by virtue of such rights in the absence of a plain and unambiguous contract obligation by Hewett.", "date": "1973-03-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-hewett-contract-obligation-practice" }, { "id": "scott-inventor-default-practice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Scott System, Inc. v. Scott", "citation": "Scott System, Inc. v. Scott, 996 P.2d 775 (Colo. App. 2000).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1316345/scott-system-inc-v-scott/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1316345/scott-system-inc-v-scott/#:~:text=Generally%2C%20an%20invention%20is%20the,patent%20rights%20to%20the%20employer.", "proposition": "Scott System, Inc. v. Scott states Colorado's common-law default that an invention is the property of the inventor who conceived, developed, and perfected it, and that employment alone does not require assignment to the employer.", "verbatimQuote": "Generally, an invention is the property of the inventor who conceived, developed, and perfected it. Hence, the mere fact that the inventor was employed by another at the time of the invention does not mean that that inventor is required to assign the patent rights to the employer.", "date": "2000-01-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/colorado#src-scott-inventor-default-practice" } ] } ] } }