{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "invention-assignment",
    "state": "district-of-columbia",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in the District of Columbia",
      "description": "The District of Columbia has no employee-invention-assignment statute, so an assignment clause is bounded by ordinary contract law, the common-law default rules, and the federal patent and copyright overlay — but the District layers a broad statutory non-compete ban on top, and the ban's definition of a non-compete provision contains no invention-assignment exclusion. Absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent, the D.C. Circuit applying District of Columbia law has enforced a click-acknowledged assignment agreement even for own-time work related to the business, and whether a post-employment holdover clause is a banned non-compete provision or an ordinary restraint judged for reasonableness is unsettled.",
      "state": "District of Columbia",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-03",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "bottomLine": "The District of Columbia has no employee-invention-assignment statute, so an assignment clause is bounded by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default, and the federal patent and copyright overlay — but the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Act adds a layer most no-statute jurisdictions lack; its definition of a non-compete provision contains no invention-assignment exclusion, so whether a post-employment holdover clause is void under the Act (with at least $1,500 per employee in liability for attempted enforcement) or is instead tested under the Restatement reasonableness framework adopted in Ellis is unsettled, and absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent.",
        "keyLaw": "No D.C. invention-assignment statute; D.C. Code § 32-581.01 et seq. (Ban on Non-Compete Agreements); Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari, 104 F.4th 897 (D.C. Cir. 2024); Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)",
        "statutoryCarveOut": "none",
        "defaultOwnership": "employee",
        "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a",
        "holdoverClauseLimit": "unsettled",
        "carveOutScope": "The District of Columbia has no statutory own-time carve-out; the reach of an assignment clause is limited by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default (subject to the hired-to-invent exception), and the federal patent and copyright overlay — plus the untested possibility that a post-employment trailing clause is a non-compete provision under the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Act, whose exclusion list names confidential-information restrictions but not invention assignment."
      },
      "about": [
        "District of Columbia invention assignment",
        "District of Columbia no invention-assignment statute",
        "District of Columbia employee invention ownership",
        "D.C. Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Act invention assignment",
        "Apprio v. Zaccari",
        "District of Columbia hired to invent",
        "District of Columbia 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 District of Columbia employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling, but there is a statutory wrinkle most no-statute jurisdictions lack. The District of Columbia has no employee-invention-assignment statute — nothing that voids the assignment of a true own-time, own-resource invention the way California Labor Code § 2870 does — so an assignment clause's reach is bounded by ordinary contract law and the federal patent and copyright overlay. The leading enforcement case is federal: the D.C. Circuit, applying District of Columbia contract law, enforced an assignment agreement the employee accepted by clicking an acknowledgment button, and held that software the employee built on his own time and equipment still had to be assigned because it related to the employer's actual business. Whether a post-employment trailing clause separately collides with the District's Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Act is an unsettled classification question taken up in the holdover section below.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "apprio-acknowledgment-enforceable",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari",
            "citation": "Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari, 104 F.4th 897 (D.C. Cir. 2024).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9682413/apprio-inc-v-neil-zaccari/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9682413/apprio-inc-v-neil-zaccari/#:~:text=We%20hold%20that%20Zaccari%E2%80%99s%20%E2%80%9Cacknowledgment%E2%80%9D,the%20Updated%20Software%20to%20Apprio.",
            "proposition": "Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari — the D.C. Circuit applying District of Columbia contract law — holds that an employee's click-button acknowledgment of an assignment agreement created an enforceable contract requiring assignment of the software at issue.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We hold that Zaccari’s “acknowledgment” of the Agreement created an enforceable contract that requires Zaccari to assign his rights in the Updated Software to Apprio.",
            "date": "2024-06-21",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-apprio-acknowledgment-enforceable"
          },
          {
            "id": "apprio-own-time-related-to-business",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari",
            "citation": "Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari, 104 F.4th 897 (D.C. Cir. 2024).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9682413/apprio-inc-v-neil-zaccari/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9682413/apprio-inc-v-neil-zaccari/#:~:text=Even%20though%20Zaccari%20created%20the,research%20%5Band%5D%20development%E2%80%9D%20with%20DCMA.",
            "proposition": "Apprio holds that software created on the employee's own time and equipment was still covered by the assignment because it was related to the employer's actual business — so the agreement's own unrelated-inventions carve-out, the contractual analog of a §2870-style statute, failed on the related-to-business prong.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Even though Zaccari created the Updated Software on his own time and equipment, its purpose and function show that it is unquestionably related to Apprio’s actual “business, research [and] development” with DCMA.",
            "date": "2024-06-21",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-apprio-own-time-related-to-business"
          },
          {
            "id": "apprio-present-assignment",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari",
            "citation": "Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari, 104 F.4th 897 (D.C. Cir. 2024).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9682413/apprio-inc-v-neil-zaccari/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9682413/apprio-inc-v-neil-zaccari/#:~:text=I%20hereby%20assign%20and%20agree,to%20assign%20in%20the%20future",
            "proposition": "The agreement enforced in Apprio used belt-and-suspenders present-assignment wording — an immediate assignment plus a promise to assign in the future — the drafting pattern that avoids leaving the employer with only an equitable claim to later-created inventions.",
            "verbatimQuote": "I hereby assign and agree to assign in the future",
            "date": "2024-06-21",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-apprio-present-assignment"
          },
          {
            "id": "stanford-inventor-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/district-of-columbia#src-stanford-inventor-baseline"
          },
          {
            "id": "dc-merit-awards-not-assignment",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 1-619.02 (Incentive awards)",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 1-619.02.",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/1-619.02",
            "proposition": "D.C. Code § 1-619.02 — the only invention-related text in the D.C. Code — authorizes capped cash awards to District-government employees for money-saving suggestions or inventions; it is a public-sector bonus provision, not a private-sector invention-ownership or assignment statute.",
            "verbatimQuote": "in the case of suggestions or inventions resulting in a tangible monetary savings or increased revenues, an award shall be based on a percentage formula of the estimated savings or revenues, not to exceed $25,000",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-dc-merit-awards-not-assignment"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "employee-notice",
        "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?",
        "heading": "Must a District of Columbia employer notify the employee?",
        "answerText": "Not applicable. Because the District 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 written-notice duties the District does impose come from the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Act, and they attach to non-compete provisions and to workplace policies that use the Act's definitional exceptions — not to invention-assignment clauses as such.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "dc-exception-policy-disclosure",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03a (Disclosures to employees)",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03a(a).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03a",
            "proposition": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03a(a) requires an employer whose workplace policy includes one or more of the exceptions to the definition of a non-compete provision to give employees a written copy of those provisions within 30 days of acceptance of employment and on any policy change — the closest the District comes to an invention-adjacent notice duty.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer with a workplace policy that includes one or more of the exceptions to the definition of non-compete provision, as detailed in § 32-581.01(15) , shall provide a written copy of the provisions to an employee: (1) Within 30 days after the employee's acceptance of employment with the employer",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-dc-exception-policy-disclosure"
          },
          {
            "id": "dc-hce-advance-writing",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03 (Limitations on non-compete provisions for highly compensated employees)",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03(a)(2).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03",
            "proposition": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03(a)(2) requires that a non-compete provision proposed to a highly compensated employee be provided in writing at least 14 days before employment begins or before the employee must execute the agreement.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The employer shall provide the non-compete provision to the employee in writing: (A) At least 14 days before the individual commences employment for the employer",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-dc-hce-advance-writing"
          },
          {
            "id": "dc-disclosure-relief",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04 (Relief and penalties)",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04(d)(4).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04",
            "proposition": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04(d)(4) — the Act's relief-and-penalties section, not a notice section — makes an employer that violates the § 32-581.03a disclosure duty liable for $250 in monetary relief to each employee for each violation, so the disclosure rule is enforced with money rather than by invalidating the underlying provision.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer that violates § 32-581.03a shall be liable for each violation to each employee subjected to the violation for monetary relief in an amount of $250.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-dc-disclosure-relief"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "default-ownership",
        "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?",
        "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in the District of Columbia?",
        "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 the District as elsewhere — is that rights belong to the employee who conceived it, with a narrow exception for the employee hired to invent. A distinctive District feature is where the case law sits: our review found no D.C. Court of Appeals decision on employee invention ownership, so the on-point rulings come from federal courts sitting in the District applying the federal defaults.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "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.",
            "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/district-of-columbia#src-stanford-inventor-default"
          },
          {
            "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/district-of-columbia#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/district-of-columbia#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent"
          },
          {
            "id": "roeslin-scope-of-employment",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Roeslin v. District of Columbia",
            "citation": "Roeslin v. District of Columbia, 921 F. Supp. 793 (D.D.C. 1995).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1987917/roeslin-v-district-of-columbia/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1987917/roeslin-v-district-of-columbia/#:~:text=The%20program%20was%20not%20the,incidental%20to%20his%20job%20duties.",
            "proposition": "Roeslin v. District of Columbia — a federal district court applying federal copyright law — holds that a software system an employee built largely at home was not a work made for hire because it was not the type of work the employee was employed to perform, leaving ownership with the employee and the employer liable in damages.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The program was not the type of work plaintiff was employed to perform, nor was it incidental to his job duties.",
            "date": "1995-04-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-roeslin-scope-of-employment"
          },
          {
            "id": "roeslin-hired-as-economist",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Roeslin v. District of Columbia",
            "citation": "Roeslin v. District of Columbia, 921 F. Supp. 793 (D.D.C. 1995).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1987917/roeslin-v-district-of-columbia/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1987917/roeslin-v-district-of-columbia/#:~:text=Plaintiff%20was%20hired%20as%20a,not%20as%20a%20computer%20programmer.",
            "proposition": "Roeslin holds that ownership by default tracked what the employee was hired to do — he was hired as a labor economist, not a programmer, so his self-taught software work fell outside the scope of his employment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Plaintiff was hired as a labor economist, not as a computer programmer.",
            "date": "1995-04-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-roeslin-hired-as-economist"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "holdover-clause-limit",
        "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in the District of Columbia?",
        "answerText": "Unsettled — and in the District the question forks in two. Our review found no decision, local or federal, addressing a post-employment trailing invention-assignment clause, and the threshold question is one of classification under the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Act. If a trailing clause functions as a non-compete provision under the Act's definition, it is void as a matter of law for covered employees in agreements entered into on or after October 1, 2022, and an employer that even attempts to enforce it owes each affected employee at least $1,500. If it is not a non-compete provision, it is an ordinary contract term judged under the Restatement reasonableness framework the D.C. Court of Appeals adopted in Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates — with no decision applying that framework to an invention holdover. Neither branch has been tested.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "dc-noncompete-definition",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(15) (Definitions — non-compete provision)",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(15).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(15) defines a non-compete provision functionally — a written-agreement or workplace-policy term that prohibits an employee from performing work for another for pay or from operating the employee's own business — and its exclusion list contains no invention-assignment or intellectual-property exception, so whether a trailing assignment clause is covered is an open question of statutory text.",
            "verbatimQuote": "a provision in a written agreement or a workplace policy that prohibits an employee from performing work for another for pay or from operating the employee's own business",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-dc-noncompete-definition"
          },
          {
            "id": "dc-confidential-info-exclusion",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(15)(B)(i) (confidential-information exclusion)",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(15)(B)(i).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.01",
            "proposition": "D.C. Code § 32-581.01(15)(B)(i) excludes from the non-compete definition provisions that prohibit or restrict an employee from disclosing, using, selling, or accessing the employer's confidential or proprietary information — the exclusion a trailing invention-assignment clause anchored to confidential information would rely on.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Disclosing, using, selling, or accessing the employer's confidential employer information or proprietary employer information",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-dc-confidential-info-exclusion"
          },
          {
            "id": "dc-void-covered-employees",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.02 (Prohibition on non-compete provisions)",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.02(a)(2).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.02",
            "proposition": "D.C. Code § 32-581.02(a)(2) makes a non-compete provision in an agreement between a covered employee and an employer entered into on or after October 1, 2022 void as a matter of law and unenforceable — so if a trailing assignment clause is classified as a non-compete provision, it is void for covered employees, while pre-October 2022 agreements remain under the common law.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A non-compete provision that violates paragraph (1) of this subsection contained in an agreement between a covered employee and an employer that was entered into on or after October 1, 2022, shall be void as a matter of law and unenforceable.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-dc-void-covered-employees"
          },
          {
            "id": "dc-attempted-enforcement-penalty",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04 (Relief and penalties)",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04(d)(2)(A).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.04",
            "proposition": "D.C. Code § 32-581.04(d)(2) makes an employer that attempts to enforce a void or unenforceable non-compete provision liable to each affected employee for at least $1,500 (at least $3,000 for subsequent violations) — the District penalizes the attempt, not just the loss, which raises the drafting stakes of the untested classification question.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer that attempts to enforce a non-compete provision that is unenforceable or void as provided in §§ 32-581.02(a)(2) and 32-581.03(a) shall be liable to each employee against whom the employer attempted to enforce the invalid non-compete provision for relief in an amount not less than $1,500.",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-dc-attempted-enforcement-penalty"
          },
          {
            "id": "dc-hce-term-limit",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03 (Limitations on non-compete provisions for highly compensated employees)",
            "citation": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03(a)(1)(C)(i).",
            "url": "https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-581.03",
            "proposition": "D.C. Code § 32-581.03(a) permits a non-compete provision for a highly compensated employee only if it specifies functional scope and geography and keeps its term at or below 365 calendar days after separation (730 for medical specialists) — a mold a trailing invention-assignment clause does not naturally fit.",
            "verbatimQuote": "a term of non-competition that does not exceed 365 calendar days from the date the employee separates from employment with the employer",
            "date": "2022-10-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-dc-hce-term-limit"
          },
          {
            "id": "ellis-restatement-adoption",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates, Inc.",
            "citation": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates, Inc., 565 A.2d 615 (D.C. 1989).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561257/ellis-v-james-v-hurson-associates-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561257/ellis-v-james-v-hurson-associates-inc/#:~:text=In%20the%20absence%20of%20any,to%20the%20case%20before%20us.",
            "proposition": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates supports the rule that, in the absence of well-developed local doctrine, the D.C. Court of Appeals adopted the Restatement (Second) of Contracts exposition (§§ 186-188) for judging post-employment restraints — the framework that would govern a trailing clause held not to be a statutory non-compete provision.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In the absence of any current well-developed doctrine in our jurisdiction, we adopt this modern and authoritative exposition insofar as it applies to the case before us.",
            "date": "1989-10-25",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-ellis-restatement-adoption"
          },
          {
            "id": "ellis-reasonableness-test",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates, Inc.",
            "citation": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates, Inc., 565 A.2d 615 (D.C. 1989) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188(2)).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561257/ellis-v-james-v-hurson-associates-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561257/ellis-v-james-v-hurson-associates-inc/#:~:text=(a)%20the%20restraint%20is%20greater,likely%20injury%20to%20the%20public.",
            "proposition": "Ellis, adopting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 188(2), states the test that an ancillary restraint is unreasonably in restraint of trade if it is greater than needed to protect the promisee's legitimate interest or if that need is outweighed by the hardship to the promisor and the likely injury to the public.",
            "verbatimQuote": "(a) the restraint is greater than is needed to protect the promisee’s legitimate interest, or (b) the promisee’s need is outweighed by the hardship to the promisor and the likely injury to the public.",
            "date": "1989-10-25",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-ellis-reasonableness-test"
          },
          {
            "id": "ellis-blue-pencil-reserved",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates, Inc.",
            "citation": "Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates, Inc., 565 A.2d 615 (D.C. 1989).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561257/ellis-v-james-v-hurson-associates-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561257/ellis-v-james-v-hurson-associates-inc/#:~:text=injunction%20appeal%20decide%20whether%20or,pencil%E2%80%9D%20rule%20in%20this%20jurisdiction",
            "proposition": "Ellis — decided in a preliminary-injunction posture — expressly reserved whether the District of Columbia follows a blue-pencil rule, so judicial narrowing of an overbroad restraint cannot be assumed in the District.",
            "verbatimQuote": "injunction appeal decide whether or not to adopt a “blue pencil” rule in this jurisdiction",
            "date": "1989-10-25",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-ellis-blue-pencil-reserved"
          },
          {
            "id": "apprio-present-assignment-practice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari",
            "citation": "Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari, 104 F.4th 897 (D.C. Cir. 2024).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9682413/apprio-inc-v-neil-zaccari/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9682413/apprio-inc-v-neil-zaccari/#:~:text=I%20hereby%20assign%20and%20agree,to%20assign%20in%20the%20future",
            "proposition": "The agreement enforced in Apprio used belt-and-suspenders present-assignment wording — an immediate assignment plus a promise to assign in the future — the drafting pattern that passes title to during-employment inventions without relying on a contested trailing clause.",
            "verbatimQuote": "I hereby assign and agree to assign in the future",
            "date": "2024-06-21",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/district-of-columbia#src-apprio-present-assignment-practice"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}