{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "guam", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Guam", "description": "Guam has no California-style own-time carve-out and no notice requirement, but it is not a blank slate either — its 1970 Civil Code was copied from California's, so 18 GCA § 55311 makes everything an employee acquires by virtue of employment belong to the employer while 19 GCA § 31301 gives the author of any product of the mind, expressly including an invention, exclusive ownership, and no Guam decision found in our review construes either provision for inventions. Guam courts read California-derived statutes through California case law, which points to the employee owning by default, and a post-employment holdover clause that operates as a restraint faces outright voidness under 18 GCA § 88105, the verbatim twin of California's section 16600 that the Supreme Court of Guam enforced per se in Island Eye Center v. Lombard.", "state": "Guam", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-03", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "Guam has no employee-invention-assignment statute in the California mold — no own-time carve-out and no notice requirement — but two never-construed Field Code provisions pull in opposite directions, with 18 GCA § 55311 declaring that everything an employee acquires by virtue of employment belongs to the employer and 19 GCA § 31301 giving the author of any product of the mind, expressly including an invention, exclusive ownership; no Guam invention decision was found in our review, so default ownership is a prediction that runs through Guam's borrowed-statute rule — California case law construing the identical parent statutes is persuasive — and points to the employee, and a post-employment holdover clause that operates as a restraint faces outright voidness under 18 GCA § 88105, the verbatim twin of California's section 16600 that the Supreme Court of Guam read as a per-se ban in Island Eye Center v. Lombard.", "keyLaw": "18 GCA §§ 55311, 88105; 19 GCA § 31301; Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32", "statutoryCarveOut": "unsettled", "defaultOwnership": "employee", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "statutoryLimit", "carveOutScope": "Guam has no statutory own-time carve-out. The only statutory texts on point pull in opposite directions — 18 GCA § 55311's employer-acquisition rule and 19 GCA § 31301's inventor-first products-of-the-mind rule — and neither has been construed for inventions in any decision found in our review, so the reach of an assignment clause is bounded by ordinary contract law, the federal patent overlay, and, for post-employment reach, the outright-voidness rule of 18 GCA § 88105." }, "about": [ "Guam invention assignment", "18 GCA 55311 property belonging to employer", "19 GCA 31301 products of the mind", "Guam employee invention ownership", "Island Eye Center v. Lombard", "18 GCA 88105 restraint of trade", "Guam 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 Guam employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no employee-protective ceiling — Guam has no §2870-style statute voiding the assignment of a true own-time, own-resource invention — but Guam is not a bare no-statute jurisdiction either. Its 1970 Civil Code was copied from California's, and two of its provisions speak to employee-created property from opposite directions: 18 GCA § 55311 declares that everything an employee acquires by virtue of employment belongs to the employer, while 19 GCA § 31301 gives the author of any product of the mind, expressly including an invention, exclusive ownership. Neither provision has been construed for inventions in any Guam decision found in our review, so whether § 55311 operates as a partial employer-ownership rule for inventions is genuinely unsettled.", "sources": [ { "id": "gu-55311-employer-acquisition", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "18 GCA § 55311", "citation": "18 GCA § 55311.", "url": "https://col.guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/18gc055.pdf", "proposition": "18 GCA § 55311, carried into Guam's 1970 Civil Code from California Civil Code § 1985 (later California Labor Code § 2860), makes everything an employee acquires by virtue of employment the employer's property except compensation due — a partial employer-acquisition statute that plausibly reaches inventions but never mentions them and has not been construed for one in any decision found in our review.", "verbatimQuote": "Everything which an employee acquires by virtue of his employment, except the compensation, if any, which is due to him from his employer, belongs to the latter whether acquired lawfully or unlawfully, or during or after the expiration of the term of his employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-gu-55311-employer-acquisition" }, { "id": "gu-31301-inventor-first", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "19 GCA § 31301", "citation": "19 GCA § 31301.", "url": "https://col.guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/19gc031.pdf", "proposition": "19 GCA § 31301, Guam's Field Code products-of-the-mind provision, gives the author of any product of the mind — expressly including an invention — exclusive ownership while it remains in the author's possession, an inventor-first statutory counterweight to § 55311's employer-acquisition rule.", "verbatimQuote": "The author of any product of the mind, whether it is an invention, or a composition in letters or art, or a design, with or without delineation, or other graphical representation, has an exclusive ownership therein, and in the representation or expression thereof, which continues so long as the product and the representations or expressions thereof made by him remain in his possession.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-gu-31301-inventor-first" }, { "id": "ie-borrowed-statute-rule", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard", "citation": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32.", "url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/island-eye-ctr-v-1039283384", "proposition": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, quoting Banes v. Superior Court, 2012 Guam 11, states Guam's borrowed-statute rule — California case law construing nearly identical parent statutes is persuasive absent a compelling reason to deviate — the interpretive bridge through which California's treatment of the parents of §§ 55311 and 88105 reaches Guam.", "verbatimQuote": "When Guam statutes are based on nearly identical California statutes, California case law is persuasive, absent any compelling reason to deviate from California's interpretation.", "date": "2020-12-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-ie-borrowed-statute-rule" }, { "id": "aero-bolt-common-law-default", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Aero Bolt & Screw Co. of Cal. v. Iaia", "citation": "Aero Bolt & Screw Co. of Cal. v. Iaia, 180 Cal. App. 2d 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2194502/aero-bolt-screw-co-v-iaia/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2194502/aero-bolt-screw-co-v-iaia/#:~:text=It%20is%20well%20settled%20that,of%20the%20employee%E2%80%99s%20inventive%20genius.", "proposition": "Aero Bolt & Screw Co. of Cal. v. Iaia states California's common-law rule that the mere employment relationship does not entitle the employer to the employee's invention — a decision that resolves employee-invention ownership without any reference to the employer-acquisition statute from which 18 GCA § 55311 was copied, supporting the negative inference that California has never read that text to defeat the inventor default.", "verbatimQuote": "It is well settled that the mere existence of the employer-employee relationship is not by itself sufficient to entitle the employer to partake of the benefits of the employee’s inventive genius.", "date": "1960-05-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-aero-bolt-common-law-default" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must a Guam employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Guam 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 one Guam statute that touches employee acquisitions, 18 GCA § 55311, vests ownership language in the employer without conditioning anything on notice to, or disclosure by, anyone.", "sources": [ { "id": "gu-55311-no-notice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "18 GCA § 55311", "citation": "18 GCA § 55311.", "url": "https://col.guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/18gc055.pdf", "proposition": "18 GCA § 55311 operates unconditionally by its terms, without requiring any notice to or disclosure by the employee — and Guam has no invention-assignment statute, so no statutory notice regime of any kind exists.", "verbatimQuote": "Everything which an employee acquires by virtue of his employment, except the compensation, if any, which is due to him from his employer, belongs to the latter whether acquired lawfully or unlawfully, or during or after the expiration of the term of his employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-gu-55311-no-notice" }, { "id": "gu-55312-duty-to-account", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "18 GCA § 55312", "citation": "18 GCA § 55312.", "url": "https://col.guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/18gc055.pdf", "proposition": "18 GCA § 55312 is an employee accounting-and-remittance duty, not an invention-disclosure regime — it obliges the employee to account and give notice of what is received for the employer's account, and imposes no notice duty on the employer.", "verbatimQuote": "An employee must, on demand, render to his employer just accounts of all his transactions in the course of his service, as often as may be reasonable, and must, without demand, give prompt notice to his employer of everything which he receives for his account.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-gu-55312-duty-to-account" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Guam?", "answerText": "The employee, most likely — as an openly predictive answer. Our review found no Guam decision, in any court or posture, on employee-invention ownership, the shop right, hired-to-invent, or an invention-assignment clause. The prediction rests on three converging layers: the federal baseline that rights in an invention belong to the inventor, 19 GCA § 31301's own inventor-first text expressly covering an invention, and Guam's borrowed-statute rule, under which California's construction of the identical parent statutes is persuasive — and California has never read § 55311's parent to defeat the inventor default. The unreconciled tension with § 55311's employer-acquisition text is the reason this stays a prediction rather than settled law.", "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 — the federal baseline that applies in Guam of its own force and that competes with 18 GCA § 55311's employer-acquisition text.", "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/guam#src-stanford-inventor-default" }, { "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 — the hired-to-invent exception a Guam court would most likely consult, since our review found no Guam decision adopting it.", "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/guam#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "dubilier-shop-right", "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=where%20a%20servant%2C%20during%20his,right%20to%20practice%20the%20invention.", "proposition": "United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. states the shop-right rule — an employee who conceives and perfects an invention on the employer's time with the employer's materials owes the employer a non-exclusive right to practice it, not ownership; our review found no Guam decision applying the doctrine, so it operates here only as the federal framework a Guam court would most likely consult.", "verbatimQuote": "where a servant, during his hours of employment, working with his master's materials and appliances, conceives and perfects an invention for which he obtains a patent, he must accord his master a non-exclusive right to practice the invention.", "date": "1933-05-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-dubilier-shop-right" }, { "id": "gu-31301-default-text", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "19 GCA § 31301", "citation": "19 GCA § 31301.", "url": "https://col.guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/19gc031.pdf", "proposition": "19 GCA § 31301 vests exclusive ownership of any product of the mind — expressly including an invention — in its author, Guam's own inventor-first statutory text and one of the two never-construed provisions between which Guam's default ownership rule must be predicted.", "verbatimQuote": "The author of any product of the mind, whether it is an invention, or a composition in letters or art, or a design, with or without delineation, or other graphical representation, has an exclusive ownership therein, and in the representation or expression thereof, which continues so long as the product and the representations or expressions thereof made by him remain in his possession.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-gu-31301-default-text" }, { "id": "gu-55311-default-tension", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "18 GCA § 55311", "citation": "18 GCA § 55311.", "url": "https://col.guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/18gc055.pdf", "proposition": "18 GCA § 55311's text vests everything an employee acquires by virtue of employment in the employer — an employer-favoring default that, if applied to inventions, would displace the inventor-first baseline; no decision found in our review reconciles it with 19 GCA § 31301.", "verbatimQuote": "Everything which an employee acquires by virtue of his employment, except the compensation, if any, which is due to him from his employer, belongs to the latter whether acquired lawfully or unlawfully, or during or after the expiration of the term of his employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-gu-55311-default-tension" }, { "id": "gu-1gca-700-construction-only", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "1 GCA § 700", "citation": "1 GCA § 700.", "url": "https://col.guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/01gc007.pdf", "proposition": "1 GCA § 700 adopts common-law rules of construction only — its compiler comment states that the section does not adopt substantive common law — so Guam has no reception statute, and the gap-filler for never-construed Civil Code provisions is the borrowed-statute doctrine rather than a common-law or Restatement cascade.", "verbatimQuote": "this Section does not adopt substantive common law", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-gu-1gca-700-construction-only" }, { "id": "ie-borrowed-rule-default", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard", "citation": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32.", "url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/island-eye-ctr-v-1039283384", "proposition": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, quoting Banes v. Superior Court, 2012 Guam 11, applies Guam's borrowed-statute rule — California case law construing nearly identical parent statutes is persuasive — the doctrine through which California's inventor-favoring construction of § 55311's parent supplies Guam's predicted default.", "verbatimQuote": "When Guam statutes are based on nearly identical California statutes, California case law is persuasive, absent any compelling reason to deviate from California's interpretation.", "date": "2020-12-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-ie-borrowed-rule-default" }, { "id": "aero-bolt-mere-relationship", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Aero Bolt & Screw Co. of Cal. v. Iaia", "citation": "Aero Bolt & Screw Co. of Cal. v. Iaia, 180 Cal. App. 2d 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2194502/aero-bolt-screw-co-v-iaia/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2194502/aero-bolt-screw-co-v-iaia/#:~:text=It%20is%20well%20settled%20that,of%20the%20employee%E2%80%99s%20inventive%20genius.", "proposition": "Aero Bolt & Screw Co. of Cal. v. Iaia holds that the mere employment relationship does not entitle a California employer to the employee's invention — the employer there took neither title nor a shop right — a common-law decision containing no reference to the statute from which 18 GCA § 55311 was copied, so its force in Guam is the negative inference that California never read that text to capture inventions.", "verbatimQuote": "It is well settled that the mere existence of the employer-employee relationship is not by itself sufficient to entitle the employer to partake of the benefits of the employee’s inventive genius.", "date": "1960-05-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-aero-bolt-mere-relationship" }, { "id": "aero-bolt-synthesis", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Aero Bolt & Screw Co. of Cal. v. Iaia", "citation": "Aero Bolt & Screw Co. of Cal. v. Iaia, 180 Cal. App. 2d 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2194502/aero-bolt-screw-co-v-iaia/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2194502/aero-bolt-screw-co-v-iaia/#:~:text=A%20synthesis%20of%20the%20rules,title%20thereof%20to%20the%20employer.", "proposition": "Aero Bolt & Screw Co. of Cal. v. Iaia synthesizes California's employee-invention assignment rules — the employer takes only where the employee was hired to invent or the employment contract required assignment — the construction a Guam court applying the borrowed-statute doctrine would find persuasive.", "verbatimQuote": "A synthesis of the rules relating to such assignments would be either (a) where the employee is hired to invent (i.e. has a duty to invent) or (b) where even though there was no duty to invent, that it was part of the employment contract that if there should be an invention, that the employee would assign the title thereof to the employer.", "date": "1960-05-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-aero-bolt-synthesis" }, { "id": "francklyn-shop-right-personal", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Francklyn v. Guilford Packing Co.", "citation": "Francklyn v. Guilford Packing Co., 695 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir. 1983).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/411928/francklyn-v-guilford-packing-company/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/411928/francklyn-v-guilford-packing-company/#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20well%20established,contract%20to%20a%20third%20person.", "proposition": "Francklyn v. Guilford Packing Co., a Ninth Circuit decision, holds that a shop right — there arising from the inventor's acquiescence in the use of his invention rather than a classic employment analysis — is personal to the holder and cannot be assigned or transferred to a third person.", "verbatimQuote": "It is a well established principle that a shop right is personal to the employer; it cannot be assigned or transferred by contract to a third person.", "date": "1983-01-04", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-francklyn-shop-right-personal" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Guam?", "answerText": "Untested locally — and the governing framework is statutory voidness, not reasonableness. No Guam decision found in our review reaches a trailing invention-assignment clause. The statute such a clause would be tested under is 18 GCA § 88105, which voids, to that extent, every contract restraining anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business outside two narrow exceptions. Section 88105 is the verbatim twin of California Business and Professions Code § 16600, the Supreme Court of Guam adopted California's per-se employee-mobility reading and voided the post-employment restraint before it in Island Eye Center, Inc. v. Lombard, and the Federal Circuit — applying California law under the identical statute, persuasive here but not Guam law — has voided a post-employment invention-assignment clause outright in Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. Alleshouse.", "sources": [ { "id": "gu-88105-restraint-void", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "18 GCA § 88105", "citation": "18 GCA § 88105.", "url": "https://col.guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/18gc088.pdf", "proposition": "18 GCA § 88105 voids, to that extent, every contract restraining anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business outside two narrow statutory exceptions — the verbatim Field Code twin of California Business and Professions Code § 16600 under which a post-employment trailing-assignment clause that operates as a restraint would be tested.", "verbatimQuote": "Every contract, by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, otherwise than is provided in the next two sections, is to that extent void.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-gu-88105-restraint-void" }, { "id": "ie-derived-16600", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard", "citation": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32.", "url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/island-eye-ctr-v-1039283384", "proposition": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard traces 18 GCA § 88105 to former California Civil Code § 1673, since replaced by Business and Professions Code § 16600, and holds the two provisions virtually identical — the lineage that makes California's § 16600 case law, including its treatment of invention-assignment holdovers, persuasive in Guam.", "verbatimQuote": "Our statute is derived from California Civil Code section 1673, since replaced by California Business and Professions Code section 16600. Section 16600 is virtually identical to 18 GCA § 88105.", "date": "2020-12-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-ie-derived-16600" }, { "id": "ie-mobility-policy", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard", "citation": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32.", "url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/island-eye-ctr-v-1039283384", "proposition": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard holds that § 88105 evidences a public policy for employee mobility and every citizen's right to pursue lawful employment — the per-se California reading, not a reasonableness test weighing duration or geography.", "verbatimQuote": "Therefore, we hold that section 88105 evidences public policy for employee mobility and every citizen's right to pursue lawful employment or enterprise of his or her choice.", "date": "2020-12-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-ie-mobility-policy" }, { "id": "ie-void-holding", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard", "citation": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32.", "url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/island-eye-ctr-v-1039283384", "proposition": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard voided the 30-month post-employment restraint before it as a violation of 18 GCA § 88105 rather than narrowing it — the outcome a holdover clause characterized as a restraint should expect in Guam.", "verbatimQuote": "These post-employment terms are undoubtedly a restraint of trade in violation of 18 GCA § 88105 and are to that extent void.", "date": "2020-12-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-ie-void-holding" }, { "id": "shelton-void", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Shelton v. Guam Service Games", "citation": "Shelton v. Guam Service Games, 239 F.2d 902 (9th Cir. 1956).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/241093/austin-j-shelton-v-guam-service-games-a-copartnership/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/241093/austin-j-shelton-v-guam-service-games-a-copartnership/#:~:text=Since%20this%20agreement%20attempted%20to,is%20to%20that%20extent%20void.", "proposition": "Shelton v. Guam Service Games, the Ninth Circuit's early application of Guam's restraint statute, voided a Guam-wide covenant to that extent — the statute as written overrides common-law reasonableness arguments.", "verbatimQuote": "Since this agreement attempted to make the prohibition and restraint complete within the Territory of Guam, it is to that extent void.", "date": "1956-09-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-shelton-void" }, { "id": "whitewater-void-holding", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. Alleshouse", "citation": "Whitewater West Indus., Ltd. v. Alleshouse, 981 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2020).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4807394/whitewater-west-industries-v-alleshouse/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4807394/whitewater-west-industries-v-alleshouse/#:~:text=We%20reverse.%20In%20particular%2C%20we,is%20void%20under%20California%20law.", "proposition": "Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. Alleshouse — a Federal Circuit decision applying California law, persuasive but not Guam law — holds a post-employment invention-assignment provision void under § 16600, the statute Island Eye treats as virtually identical to 18 GCA § 88105.", "verbatimQuote": "We reverse. In particular, we reverse the judgment of breach of contract because we hold that the assignment provision is void under California law.", "date": "2020-11-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-whitewater-void-holding" }, { "id": "whitewater-invalid-16600", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. Alleshouse", "citation": "Whitewater West Indus., Ltd. v. Alleshouse, 981 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2020).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4807394/whitewater-west-industries-v-alleshouse/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4807394/whitewater-west-industries-v-alleshouse/#:~:text=Relying%20on%20those%20now%2Dundisputed%20premises%2C,is%20invalid%20under%20%C2%A7%2016600", "proposition": "Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. v. Alleshouse concludes the trailing assignment provision is invalid under § 16600 even though the employer argued California Labor Code § 2870 saved it — and Guam has no § 2870 analogue at all, so no local safe harbor exists for an overreaching holdover.", "verbatimQuote": "Relying on those now-undisputed premises, we conclude that the assignment provision is invalid under § 16600", "date": "2020-11-19", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-whitewater-invalid-16600" }, { "id": "ie-declines-bright-line", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard", "citation": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32.", "url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/island-eye-ctr-v-1039283384", "proposition": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard declined to adopt a bright-line rule on the facial validity of employee non-solicitation clauses, resolving the question on overbreadth grounds instead — the court's incrementalism is the reason extending § 88105 to a narrow, tethered holdover tail remains a prediction rather than a holding.", "verbatimQuote": "We decline to adopt a bright-line rule when the intricacies of the issue are not before the court on appeal.", "date": "2020-12-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-ie-declines-bright-line" }, { "id": "ie-no-utsa", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard", "citation": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32.", "url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/island-eye-ctr-v-1039283384", "proposition": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard confirms that Guam has not adopted a Uniform Trade Secrets Act analogue — the trade-secret backdrop against which a tethered holdover clause would be drafted.", "verbatimQuote": "While the majority of jurisdictions have adopted a UTSA analogue, see supra note 8, Guam has not.", "date": "2020-12-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-ie-no-utsa" }, { "id": "ie-ts-definition", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard", "citation": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32.", "url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/island-eye-ctr-v-1039283384", "proposition": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard adopts the trade-secret definition of 9 GCA § 43.10(f) — Guam's criminal code — as the definition for civil trade-secret-misappropriation claims, the protectable-information anchor a tethered trailing clause should be drafted around.", "verbatimQuote": "Therefore, we hold that the definition of trade secrets in 9 GCA § 43.10(f) is the definition of trade secrets for civil trade-secret-misappropriation claims.", "date": "2020-12-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-ie-ts-definition" }, { "id": "ie-inevitable-disclosure", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard", "citation": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32.", "url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/island-eye-ctr-v-1039283384", "proposition": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard rejects the inevitable-disclosure doctrine for trade-secret claims because it would operate as a covert post-employment restraint — the court polices doctrines used as proxy non-competes, which reinforces the prediction that an untethered holdover clause would be voided.", "verbatimQuote": "For all these reasons, we reject the inevitable disclosure doctrine to establish a claim of trade-secret misappropriation.", "date": "2020-12-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-ie-inevitable-disclosure" }, { "id": "gu-88105-void-practice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "18 GCA § 88105", "citation": "18 GCA § 88105.", "url": "https://col.guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/18gc088.pdf", "proposition": "18 GCA § 88105 voids a covered restraint to that extent — severance of the offending reach, with no statutory reasonableness test — so an untethered holdover clause characterized as a restraint falls rather than being trimmed.", "verbatimQuote": "Every contract, by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, otherwise than is provided in the next two sections, is to that extent void.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-gu-88105-void-practice" }, { "id": "ie-void-holding-practice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard", "citation": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32.", "url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/island-eye-ctr-v-1039283384", "proposition": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard voided the post-employment restraint before it outright rather than reforming it, and left open whether blue-penciling an overbroad covenant is permissible at all — so reformation is no safe harbor for an overreaching trailing clause in Guam.", "verbatimQuote": "These post-employment terms are undoubtedly a restraint of trade in violation of 18 GCA § 88105 and are to that extent void.", "date": "2020-12-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-ie-void-holding-practice" }, { "id": "gu-55311-tension-practice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "18 GCA § 55311", "citation": "18 GCA § 55311.", "url": "https://col.guamcourts.gov/sites/default/files/18gc055.pdf", "proposition": "18 GCA § 55311's employer-acquisition text has not been construed for inventions in any decision found in our review and is in unresolved tension with 19 GCA § 31301's inventor-first rule — so neither statutory default is a dependable substitute for a written assignment.", "verbatimQuote": "Everything which an employee acquires by virtue of his employment, except the compensation, if any, which is due to him from his employer, belongs to the latter whether acquired lawfully or unlawfully, or during or after the expiration of the term of his employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-gu-55311-tension-practice" }, { "id": "stanford-traceback-practice", "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 whatever default Guam's statutes supply, an employer's federal patent title still runs through a transfer 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/guam#src-stanford-traceback-practice" }, { "id": "ie-borrowed-rule-practice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard", "citation": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, 2020 Guam 32.", "url": "https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/island-eye-ctr-v-1039283384", "proposition": "Island Eye Ctr., Inc. v. Lombard, quoting Banes v. Superior Court, 2012 Guam 11, states the borrowed-statute rule under which every ownership prediction on this page runs through California case law — persuasive authority a Guam court can deviate from for a compelling reason, not a binding local holding.", "verbatimQuote": "When Guam statutes are based on nearly identical California statutes, California case law is persuasive, absent any compelling reason to deviate from California's interpretation.", "date": "2020-12-31", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/guam#src-ie-borrowed-rule-practice" } ] } ] } }