{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "invention-assignment",
    "state": "florida",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Florida",
      "description": "Florida 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 Fla. Stat. § 542.335's statutory reasonableness framework for restrictive covenants, though no Florida decision found in our review has applied it to a holdover invention assignment.",
      "state": "Florida",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "bottomLine": "Florida 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 Fla. Stat. § 542.335's statutory reasonableness framework for post-term restrictive covenants, although no Florida decision found in our review has applied § 542.335 to a holdover invention-assignment clause specifically.",
        "keyLaw": "No Florida invention-assignment statute; State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne, 7 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1942); Fla. Stat. § 542.335",
        "statutoryCarveOut": "none",
        "defaultOwnership": "employee",
        "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a",
        "holdoverClauseLimit": "reasonablenessOnly",
        "carveOutScope": "Florida 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-term restraint — Fla. Stat. § 542.335's reasonableness requirements."
      },
      "about": [
        "Florida invention assignment",
        "Florida no invention-assignment statute",
        "Florida employee invention ownership",
        "State Board of Education v. Bourne",
        "Florida hired to invent",
        "Florida shop right",
        "Florida holdover trailing assignment",
        "Fla. Stat. § 542.335 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 Florida employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. Unlike California or New York, Florida 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 Florida-specific outer limit is general restraint-of-trade law: where an assignment clause operates as a post-term restraint, Fla. Stat. § 542.335 polices it for reasonableness.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "fl-542335-reasonableness-carveout",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335",
            "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1) (2025).",
            "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335",
            "proposition": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335 permits enforcement of contracts restricting competition during or after the term of a restrictive covenant only so long as they are reasonable in time, area, and line of business — the general restraint-of-trade bound an aggressive assignment clause would face in Florida.",
            "verbatimQuote": "enforcement of contracts that restrict or prohibit competition during or after the term of restrictive covenants, so long as such contracts are reasonable in time, area, and line of business, is not prohibited.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-fl-542335-reasonableness-carveout"
          },
          {
            "id": "bourne-express-terms-carveout",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne",
            "citation": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne, 150 Fla. 323, 7 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1942).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3395988/state-board-of-education-of-fla-v-bourne/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3395988/state-board-of-education-of-fla-v-bourne/#:~:text=We%20have%20found%20no%20case,of%20producing%20the%20thing%20patented.",
            "proposition": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne holds that an employer takes an employee's patent only through express contract terms or an unequivocal hired-to-invent engagement — so in Florida the assignment clause itself, not a statute, defines what the employer may claim.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We have found no case upholding the employer’s right to the patent of an employee unless the contract of employment by express terms or unequivocal inference shows that the employee was hired for the express purpose of producing the thing patented.",
            "date": "1942-04-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-bourne-express-terms-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/florida#src-stanford-baseline-carveout"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "employee-notice",
        "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?",
        "heading": "Must a Florida employer notify the employee?",
        "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Florida 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 Florida enforces instead is contractual: any duty to disclose or assign inventions arises from the express terms of the agreement itself.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "bourne-express-terms-notice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne",
            "citation": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne, 150 Fla. 323, 7 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1942).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3395988/state-board-of-education-of-fla-v-bourne/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3395988/state-board-of-education-of-fla-v-bourne/#:~:text=We%20have%20found%20no%20case,of%20producing%20the%20thing%20patented.",
            "proposition": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne shows that Florida polices an employer's claim to an employee invention through the contract's express terms, so any disclosure or assignment duty arises from the agreement itself rather than from a notice-requiring statute.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We have found no case upholding the employer’s right to the patent of an employee unless the contract of employment by express terms or unequivocal inference shows that the employee was hired for the express purpose of producing the thing patented.",
            "date": "1942-04-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-bourne-express-terms-notice"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "default-ownership",
        "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?",
        "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Florida?",
        "answerText": "The inventor, unless hired to invent. Absent a written assignment, Florida follows the common-law rule that an invention belongs to the employee who conceived it, and the Florida Supreme Court has refused to award an employer a patent where the employment was general and the invention merely incidental to it. The narrow exception is the employee hired to invent the very thing patented.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "leffler-common-law-default",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "City of Cocoa v. Leffler",
            "citation": "City of Cocoa v. Leffler, 762 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1712812/city-of-cocoa-v-leffler/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1712812/city-of-cocoa-v-leffler/#:~:text=The%20common%20law%20generally%20regards,conceived%2C%20developed%2C%20and%20perfected%20it.",
            "proposition": "City of Cocoa v. Leffler states the common-law default that an invention is the property of the inventor who conceived, developed, and perfected it.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The common law generally regards an invention as the property of the inventor who conceived, developed, and perfected it.",
            "date": "2000-07-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-leffler-common-law-default"
          },
          {
            "id": "teets-presumptive-ownership",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Teets v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp.",
            "citation": "Teets v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 83 F.3d 403 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (applying Florida law).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/717644/j-michael-teets-plaintiffcross-appellant-v-chromalloy-gas-turbine/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/717644/j-michael-teets-plaintiffcross-appellant-v-chromalloy-gas-turbine/#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20that%20reward%2C,presumptively%20belongs%20to%20its%20creator.",
            "proposition": "Teets v. Chromalloy, a Federal Circuit decision applying Florida law, restates the baseline that an invention presumptively belongs to its creator, so an employer's ownership must come from an express or implied-in-fact contract.",
            "verbatimQuote": "As part of that reward, an invention presumptively belongs to its creator.",
            "date": "1996-07-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-teets-presumptive-ownership"
          },
          {
            "id": "bourne-hired-to-invent",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne",
            "citation": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne, 150 Fla. 323, 7 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1942).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3395988/state-board-of-education-of-fla-v-bourne/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3395988/state-board-of-education-of-fla-v-bourne/#:~:text=We%20have%20found%20no%20case,of%20producing%20the%20thing%20patented.",
            "proposition": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne confines the hired-to-invent exception to employment that shows, by express terms or unequivocal inference, that the employee was engaged for the express purpose of producing the thing patented.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We have found no case upholding the employer’s right to the patent of an employee unless the contract of employment by express terms or unequivocal inference shows that the employee was hired for the express purpose of producing the thing patented.",
            "date": "1942-04-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-bourne-hired-to-invent"
          },
          {
            "id": "bourne-general-employment",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne",
            "citation": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne, 150 Fla. 323, 7 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1942).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3395988/state-board-of-education-of-fla-v-bourne/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3395988/state-board-of-education-of-fla-v-bourne/#:~:text=If%20the%20employment%20was%20general,employer%20cannot%20claim%20the%20patent.",
            "proposition": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne holds that where the employment was general and the invention merely incidental to it, the employer cannot claim the patent — the employee-ownership default for general employees.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If the employment was general and the invention was an incident to that, the employer cannot claim the patent.",
            "date": "1942-04-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-bourne-general-employment"
          },
          {
            "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/florida#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 Florida?",
        "answerText": "Most likely tested for reasonableness under Fla. Stat. § 542.335, but the invention-specific application is undecided. No Florida decision found in our review has applied § 542.335 — or any other rule — to a post-employment holdover invention-assignment clause specifically. What Florida does have, unlike pure common-law states, is a comprehensive statutory reasonableness framework for post-term restrictive covenants: a signed writing, a pleaded and proven legitimate business interest, reasonable necessity, and rebuttable time presumptions. That framework is what a Florida court would most likely reach for when asked to enforce a clause sweeping in inventions conceived after employment ends.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "fl-542335-plead-and-prove",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335",
            "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b) (2025).",
            "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335",
            "proposition": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b) requires the party seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant to plead and prove one or more legitimate business interests justifying it — the burden a Florida employer would most likely have to carry to enforce a holdover assignment clause.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-fl-542335-plead-and-prove"
          },
          {
            "id": "fl-542335-void-without-lbi",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335",
            "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b) (2025).",
            "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335",
            "proposition": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b) voids any restrictive covenant not supported by a legitimate business interest, so a trailing-assignment restraint that fails the showing is unenforceable, not merely disfavored.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Any restrictive covenant not supported by a legitimate business interest is unlawful and is void and unenforceable.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-fl-542335-void-without-lbi"
          },
          {
            "id": "fl-542335-time-presumptions",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335",
            "citation": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d) (2025).",
            "url": "https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/542.335",
            "proposition": "Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(d) directs courts to apply rebuttable time presumptions to post-term restraints — against a former employee, six months or less is presumptively reasonable and more than two years presumptively unreasonable — the yardstick a holdover clause's duration would most likely be measured against.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In determining the reasonableness in time of a postterm restrictive covenant not predicated upon the protection of trade secrets, a court shall apply the following rebuttable presumptions:",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-fl-542335-time-presumptions"
          },
          {
            "id": "gould-lbi-proof",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Gould & Lamb, LLC v. D'Alusio",
            "citation": "Gould & Lamb, LLC v. D'Alusio, 949 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1800559/gould-lamb-llc-v-dalusio/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1800559/gould-lamb-llc-v-dalusio/#:~:text=Generalized%20statements%20of%20concern%20cannot%20substitute%20for%20proof.",
            "proposition": "Gould & Lamb v. D'Alusio, a § 542.335 case arising from an employee invention assignment and confidentiality agreement, reversed enforcement of that agreement's noncompete clause because the employer failed to prove a legitimate business interest — it shows the statute's proof burden has teeth, but it is not a holdover-invention-assignment holding.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Generalized statements of concern cannot substitute for proof.",
            "date": "2007-03-09",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-gould-lbi-proof"
          },
          {
            "id": "teets-inventive-work-timing",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Teets v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp.",
            "citation": "Teets v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 83 F.3d 403 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (applying Florida law).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/717644/j-michael-teets-plaintiffcross-appellant-v-chromalloy-gas-turbine/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/717644/j-michael-teets-plaintiffcross-appellant-v-chromalloy-gas-turbine/#:~:text=To%20apply%20this%20contract%20principle%2C,contract%20to%20assign%20patent%20rights.",
            "proposition": "Teets v. Chromalloy, applying Florida law, examines the employment relationship at the time of the inventive work to find an implied-in-fact contract to assign — so post-employment inventions are reachable only through an express trailing clause, which is why such a clause is analyzed as a post-term restraint.",
            "verbatimQuote": "To apply this contract principle, a court must examine the employment relationship at the time of the inventive work to determine if the parties entered an implied-in-fact contract to assign patent rights.",
            "date": "1996-07-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-teets-inventive-work-timing"
          },
          {
            "id": "bourne-express-terms-carveout-practice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne",
            "citation": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne, 150 Fla. 323, 7 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1942).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3395988/state-board-of-education-of-fla-v-bourne/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3395988/state-board-of-education-of-fla-v-bourne/#:~:text=We%20have%20found%20no%20case,of%20producing%20the%20thing%20patented.",
            "proposition": "State Bd. of Education of Fla. v. Bourne holds that an employer takes an employee's patent only through express contract terms or an unequivocal hired-to-invent engagement — so in Florida the assignment clause itself, not a statute, defines what the employer may claim.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We have found no case upholding the employer’s right to the patent of an employee unless the contract of employment by express terms or unequivocal inference shows that the employee was hired for the express purpose of producing the thing patented.",
            "date": "1942-04-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-bourne-express-terms-carveout-practice"
          },
          {
            "id": "teets-presumptive-ownership-practice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Teets v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp.",
            "citation": "Teets v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 83 F.3d 403 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (applying Florida law).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/717644/j-michael-teets-plaintiffcross-appellant-v-chromalloy-gas-turbine/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/717644/j-michael-teets-plaintiffcross-appellant-v-chromalloy-gas-turbine/#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20that%20reward%2C,presumptively%20belongs%20to%20its%20creator.",
            "proposition": "Teets v. Chromalloy, a Federal Circuit decision applying Florida law, restates the baseline that an invention presumptively belongs to its creator, so an employer's ownership must come from an express or implied-in-fact contract.",
            "verbatimQuote": "As part of that reward, an invention presumptively belongs to its creator.",
            "date": "1996-07-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/florida#src-teets-presumptive-ownership-practice"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}