{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "invention-assignment",
    "state": "hawaii",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Hawaii",
      "description": "Hawaii has no employee-invention-assignment statute — the one California-style carve-out bill (HB 2911, 2008) died without passage — so an assignment clause is bounded by ordinary contract law and the federal inventor-first baseline, and absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent. A post-employment holdover clause is unsettled, but unlike most no-statute states Hawaii supplies a statutory restraint-of-trade framework in HRS § 480-4, plus a one-way prevailing-employee fee shift.",
      "state": "Hawaii",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-03",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "bottomLine": "Hawaii has no employee-invention-assignment statute — the one California-style carve-out bill (HB 2911, 2008) died without passage — so an assignment clause is bounded by ordinary contract law and the federal inventor-first baseline, and absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent; a post-employment holdover clause is unsettled, but unlike most no-statute states Hawaii supplies a statutory restraint-of-trade framework (the HRS § 480-4 illegality default, ancillarity requirement, and rule-of-reason review, and a 2015 voidness rule for technology-business noncompete and nonsolicit clauses that a holdover clause is not facially within), plus a one-way prevailing-employee fee shift.",
        "keyLaw": "No Hawaii invention-assignment statute; HRS § 480-4 restraint-of-trade framework; Prudential Locations, LLC v. Gagnon, 150 Haw. 470, 506 P.3d 134 (2022); Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)",
        "statutoryCarveOut": "none",
        "defaultOwnership": "employee",
        "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a",
        "holdoverClauseLimit": "unsettled",
        "carveOutScope": "Hawaii 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, and — where the clause operates as a post-employment restraint — the HRS § 480-4 requirement that a covenant be ancillary to a legitimate purpose and reasonable."
      },
      "about": [
        "Hawaii invention assignment",
        "Hawaii no invention-assignment statute",
        "Hawaii employee invention ownership",
        "HRS 480-4 restraint of trade",
        "Hawaii technology business noncompete ban",
        "Hawaii HB 2911 employee inventions",
        "Hawaii holdover trailing assignment",
        "Hawaii prevailing employee attorneys fees 607-14.9"
      ],
      "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 Hawaii employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "answerText": "There is no invention-specific statutory ceiling. Hawaii has no employee-invention-assignment statute — nothing that voids an assignment of a true own-time, own-resource invention — and the one bill that would have created a California-style carve-out, 2008 House Bill 2911, died without passage. But Hawaii is not a blank slate for aggressive drafting: HRS § 480-4 makes every contract in restraint of trade in the State illegal by default, so an assignment clause that operates as a post-employment restraint must clear that statute, not just ordinary contract law.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "hb2911-own-time-carve-out",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "H.B. 2911, 24th Leg. (Haw. 2008)",
            "citation": "H.B. 2911, 24th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Haw. 2008) (not enacted).",
            "url": "https://data.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2008/bills/HB2911_.htm",
            "proposition": "House Bill 2911 (2008) would have added a California-style own-time carve-out for employee inventions to HRS chapter 378; it died without passage, so Hawaii has no statutory limit on what an invention-assignment clause may capture.",
            "verbatimQuote": "developed entirely on the employee's own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-hb2911-own-time-carve-out"
          },
          {
            "id": "hrs-480-4a-restraint-default",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "HRS § 480-4",
            "citation": "Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4(a).",
            "url": "https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0480/HRS_0480-0004.htm",
            "proposition": "HRS § 480-4(a) makes every contract in restraint of trade or commerce in Hawaii illegal by default — the statutory framework an overbroad assignment clause would have to clear if it operates as a post-employment restraint.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in the State, or in any section of this State is illegal.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-hrs-480-4a-restraint-default"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "employee-notice",
        "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?",
        "heading": "Must a Hawaii employer notify the employee?",
        "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Hawaii has no invention-assignment statute, there is no statutory carve-out to notify the employee about and no notice formality of the kind California imposes under Labor Code § 2872 or Washington imposes under RCW 49.44.140(3). The only written-notice duty Hawaii ever drafted was in the 2008 bill that died without passage: HB 2911 would have required every assignment provision to include written notification of the proposed own-time carve-out.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "hb2911-notice-proposal",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "H.B. 2911, 24th Leg. (Haw. 2008)",
            "citation": "H.B. 2911, 24th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Haw. 2008) (not enacted).",
            "url": "https://data.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2008/bills/HB2911_.htm",
            "proposition": "House Bill 2911 (2008) proposed the only employee-notice duty Hawaii has ever drafted for invention assignments — a written notification of the bill's own-time carve-out — and it died without passage, so no notice requirement exists.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Any employment agreement that contains a provision requiring an employee to assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer shall include written notification to the employee of subsection (a).",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-hb2911-notice-proposal"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "default-ownership",
        "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?",
        "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Hawaii?",
        "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 Hawaii as elsewhere — is that rights belong to the employee who conceived it. The narrow exception is the employee hired to invent, whose resulting invention the employer may claim, and short of ownership the employer may hold only an equitable shop right. Our review found no Hawaii decision addressing employee-invention ownership at all, so nothing state-specific displaces that baseline.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "stanford-inventor",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems",
            "citation": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/#:~:text=Since%201790%2C%20the%20patent%20law,invention%20belong%20to%20the%20inventor.",
            "proposition": "Stanford v. Roche confirms the long-standing premise of U.S. patent law that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.",
            "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/hawaii#src-stanford-inventor"
          },
          {
            "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/hawaii#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/hawaii#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent"
          },
          {
            "id": "blueearth-same-proof-preemption",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "BlueEarth Biofuels, LLC v. Hawaiian Electric Co.",
            "citation": "BlueEarth Biofuels, LLC v. Hawaiian Elec. Co., 123 Haw. 314, 235 P.3d 310 (2010) (quoting Hauck Mfg. Co. v. Astec Indus., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 649, 658 (E.D. Tenn. 2004)).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/870659/blueearth-biofuels-llc-v-hawaiian-electric-co/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/870659/blueearth-biofuels-llc-v-hawaiian-electric-co/#:~:text=if%20proof%20of%20a%20non%2DUTSA,were%20necessary%20to%20establish%20it",
            "proposition": "BlueEarth Biofuels, adopting and quoting the Hauck Manufacturing same-proof standard, holds that Hawaii's Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts non-contract claims whose proof would simultaneously establish trade-secret misappropriation — leaving contract claims, including invention-assignment agreements, as the surviving vehicle.",
            "verbatimQuote": "if proof of a non-UTSA claim would also simultaneously establish a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, it is preempted irrespective of whatever surplus elements or proof were necessary to establish it",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-blueearth-same-proof-preemption"
          },
          {
            "id": "hrs-482b-8-contract-remedies",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "HRS § 482B-8",
            "citation": "Haw. Rev. Stat. § 482B-8(b)(1).",
            "url": "https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0482B/HRS_0482B-0008.htm",
            "proposition": "HRS § 482B-8(b)(1) expressly preserves contractual remedies from trade-secret-act displacement, whether or not based on misappropriation — the statutory reason a written assignment agreement remains enforceable alongside Hawaii's trade-secret regime.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-hrs-482b-8-contract-remedies"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "holdover-clause-limit",
        "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Hawaii?",
        "answerText": "Unsettled — but the framework a Hawaii court would most likely reach for is statutory, not just common law. No Hawaii decision found in our review addresses a trailing invention-assignment clause, and whether a court would classify one as a restraint of trade at all is undecided. If it did, HRS § 480-4 supplies the test: subsection (a) makes contracts in restraint of trade illegal by default, subsection (c) saves covenants only when ancillary to a legitimate purpose, and the Hawaii Supreme Court has held that even a covenant reasonable under the Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger factors is unenforceable without such a purpose — and that restricting competition is not one.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "hrs-480-4a-illegality-default",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "HRS § 480-4",
            "citation": "Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4(a).",
            "url": "https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0480/HRS_0480-0004.htm",
            "proposition": "HRS § 480-4(a) supplies the statutory default — every contract in restraint of trade or commerce in Hawaii is illegal — that a post-employment trailing-assignment clause would have to overcome if characterized as a restraint.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in the State, or in any section of this State is illegal.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-hrs-480-4a-illegality-default"
          },
          {
            "id": "hrs-480-4c-ancillarity",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "HRS § 480-4",
            "citation": "Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4(c).",
            "url": "https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0480/HRS_0480-0004.htm",
            "proposition": "HRS § 480-4(c) makes restrictive covenants lawful only when ancillary to a legitimate purpose not violative of chapter 480 and not substantially anticompetitive — the statutory condition any restraint-functioning holdover clause would have to satisfy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "ancillary to a legitimate purpose not violative of this chapter, unless the effect thereof may be substantially to lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce in any section of the State",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-hrs-480-4c-ancillarity"
          },
          {
            "id": "technicolor-c-list-non-exclusive",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger",
            "citation": "Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger, 57 Haw. 113, 551 P.2d 163 (1976).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1175722/technicolor-inc-v-traeger/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1175722/technicolor-inc-v-traeger/#:~:text=Our%20understanding%20of%20the%20above,exclusive%20in%20their%20respective%20fields.",
            "proposition": "Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger holds that the covenants enumerated in HRS § 480-4(c) are not exclusive — the holding that lets an unlisted restraint, such as a trailing invention assignment, be analyzed under the rule of reason rather than condemned automatically.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Our understanding of the above committee report is that the restrictive covenants and agreements enumerated under § 480-4(c) were not meant to be exclusive in their respective fields.",
            "date": "1976-06-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-technicolor-c-list-non-exclusive"
          },
          {
            "id": "technicolor-goldschmid-three-factors",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger",
            "citation": "Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger, 57 Haw. 113, 551 P.2d 163 (1976) (quoting Goldschmid, Antitrust's Neglected Stepchild, 73 Colum. L. Rev. 1193, 1196 (1973)).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1175722/technicolor-inc-v-traeger/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1175722/technicolor-inc-v-traeger/#:~:text=(i)%20it%20is%20greater%20than,by%20injury%20to%20the%20public.",
            "proposition": "Technicolor, Inc. v. Traeger, quoting Goldschmid's law-review formulation, states the three-factor test under which Hawaii courts find a restrictive covenant unreasonable — overbreadth relative to the protected interest, undue hardship on the person restricted, or public injury outweighing the benefit.",
            "verbatimQuote": "(i) it is greater than required for the protection of the person for whose benefit it is imposed; (ii) it imposes undue hardship on the person restricted; or(iii) its benefit to the covenantee is outweighed by injury to the public.",
            "date": "1976-06-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-technicolor-goldschmid-three-factors"
          },
          {
            "id": "sevens-enterprises-legitimate-interests",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "7's Enterprises, Inc. v. Del Rosario",
            "citation": "7's Enterprises, Inc. v. Del Rosario, 111 Haw. 484, 143 P.3d 23 (2006).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2626419/7s-enterprises-inc-v-del-rosario/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2626419/7s-enterprises-inc-v-del-rosario/#:~:text=Hence%2C%20as%20a%20matter%20of,information%2C%20or%20special%20customer%20relationships.",
            "proposition": "7's Enterprises, Inc. v. Del Rosario, applying the Traeger reasonableness test, holds that specialized training is a legitimate interest when combined with protectable business interests such as trade secrets, confidential information, or special customer relationships — the interest catalogue a trade-secret-tethered holdover clause would draw on.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Hence, as a matter of law, we hold that training that provides skills beyond those of a general nature is a legitimate interest which may be considered in weighing the reasonableness of a non-competition covenant, when combined with other factors weighing in favor of a protectable business interest such as trade secrets, confidential information, or special customer relationships.",
            "date": "2006-09-13",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-sevens-enterprises-legitimate-interests"
          },
          {
            "id": "prudential-ancillarity-gate",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Prudential Locations, LLC v. Gagnon",
            "citation": "Prudential Locations, LLC v. Gagnon, 150 Haw. 470, 506 P.3d 134 (2022).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6358303/prudential-locations-llc-v-gagnon/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6358303/prudential-locations-llc-v-gagnon/#:~:text=Even%20if%20a%20restrictive%20covenant,not%20violative%20of%20Chapter%20480.",
            "proposition": "Prudential Locations, LLC v. Gagnon holds that even a restrictive covenant satisfying the Traeger three-factor reasonableness test is unenforceable unless ancillary to a legitimate purpose not violative of chapter 480 — the threshold gate a holdover clause would face before any reasonableness analysis.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Even if a restrictive covenant otherwise satisfies the Traeger three-factor reasonableness test, it is unenforceable unless it is ancillary to a legitimate purpose not violative of Chapter 480.",
            "date": "2022-02-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-prudential-ancillarity-gate"
          },
          {
            "id": "prudential-competition-not-legitimate",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Prudential Locations, LLC v. Gagnon (amended opinion)",
            "citation": "Prudential Locations, LLC v. Gagnon, 151 Haw. 136, 509 P.3d 1099 (2022) (amended opinion).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6457170/prudential-locations-llc-v-gagnon/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6457170/prudential-locations-llc-v-gagnon/#:~:text=restricting%20competition%20is%20not%20a,or%20commerce%20in%20the%20State",
            "proposition": "Prudential Locations, LLC v. Gagnon holds, among its numbered holdings, that restricting competition is not a legitimate ancillary purpose because HRS § 480-4(a) prohibits contracts in restraint of trade — so a holdover clause justified as suppressing a former employee's competition fails at the threshold.",
            "verbatimQuote": "restricting competition is not a legitimate ancillary purpose, as HRS § 480-4(a) prohibits contracts in restraint of trade or commerce in the State",
            "date": "2022-04-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-prudential-competition-not-legitimate"
          },
          {
            "id": "prudential-act158-mobility-findings",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Prudential Locations, LLC v. Gagnon (amended opinion)",
            "citation": "Prudential Locations, LLC v. Gagnon, 151 Haw. 136, 509 P.3d 1099 (2022) (amended opinion) (quoting 2015 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 158, § 1).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6457170/prudential-locations-llc-v-gagnon/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6457170/prudential-locations-llc-v-gagnon/#:~:text=academic%20studies%20have%20concluded%20that,for%20nurturing%20an%20innovation%2Dbased%20economy",
            "proposition": "Prudential Locations, LLC v. Gagnon quotes the 2015 Act 158 legislative findings that embracing employee mobility is a superior strategy for nurturing an innovation-based economy — the legislative purpose behind the technology-business restraint ban in HRS § 480-4(d).",
            "verbatimQuote": "academic studies have concluded that embracing employee mobility is a superior strategy for nurturing an innovation-based economy",
            "date": "2022-04-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-prudential-act158-mobility-findings"
          },
          {
            "id": "hrs-480-4c4-trade-secret-safe-harbor",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "HRS § 480-4",
            "citation": "Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4(c)(4).",
            "url": "https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0480/HRS_0480-0004.htm",
            "proposition": "HRS § 480-4(c)(4) is the one employee covenant the statute expressly blesses — a time-limited covenant not to use the employer's trade secrets in competition — marking the scope within which a trade-secret-tethered holdover clause has its strongest statutory footing.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A covenant or agreement by an employee or agent not to use the trade secrets of the employer or principal in competition with the employee's or agent's employer or principal, during the term of the agency or thereafter, or after the termination of employment, within such time as may be reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer or principal, without imposing undue hardship on the employee or agent.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-hrs-480-4c4-trade-secret-safe-harbor"
          },
          {
            "id": "hrs-480-4d-tech-ban",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "HRS § 480-4",
            "citation": "Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4(d).",
            "url": "https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0480/HRS_0480-0004.htm",
            "proposition": "HRS § 480-4(d), added by 2015 Act 158, voids noncompete and nonsolicit clauses in technology-business employment contracts outright — void and of no force and effect — leaving no room for judicial narrowing of a clause held within the ban.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Except as provided in subsection (c)(4), it shall be prohibited to include a noncompete clause or a nonsolicit clause in any employment contract relating to an employee of a technology business. The clause shall be void and of no force and effect.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-hrs-480-4d-tech-ban"
          },
          {
            "id": "hrs-480-4d-narrow-definitions",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "HRS § 480-4",
            "citation": "Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-4(d).",
            "url": "https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0480/HRS_0480-0004.htm",
            "proposition": "HRS § 480-4(d) defines noncompete clause as a geographic-and-temporal work prohibition and nonsolicit clause as employee-poaching only — narrow definitions a trailing invention-assignment clause does not facially satisfy, so the tech-business voidness rule reaches it only under an untested functional-noncompete characterization.",
            "verbatimQuote": "\"Noncompete clause\" means a clause in an employment contract that prohibits an employee from working in a specific geographic area for a specific period of time after leaving employment with the employer. \"Nonsolicit clause\" means a clause in an employment contract that prohibits an employee from soliciting employees of the employer after leaving employment with the employer.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-hrs-480-4d-narrow-definitions"
          },
          {
            "id": "hrs-607-14-9-fee-shift",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "HRS § 607-14.9",
            "citation": "Haw. Rev. Stat. § 607-14.9.",
            "url": "https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0607/HRS_0607-0014_0009.htm",
            "proposition": "HRS § 607-14.9 awards reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to a prevailing employee — but not a prevailing employer — in any action involving an agreement that purportedly restricts an employee from competing, a one-way enforcement-cost deterrent that may reach an invention-holdover dispute so characterized.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In a civil action which involves the interpretation or enforcement of an agreement or alleged agreement which purportedly restricts an employee from competing with an employer, or former employer, or working for a competitor of an employer or former employer, any employee or former employee who prevails shall be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-hrs-607-14-9-fee-shift"
          },
          {
            "id": "sb1161-2025-extension",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "S.B. 1161, 33d Leg. (Haw. 2025)",
            "citation": "S.B. 1161, 33d Leg., Reg. Sess. (Haw. 2025) (not enacted).",
            "url": "https://data.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2025/bills/SB1161_.HTM",
            "proposition": "Senate Bill 1161 (2025, introduced but not enacted) would extend the HRS § 480-4(d) restraint ban to restaurant and retail-store employees, citing Census Bureau findings crediting the 2015 technology ban with increased job mobility and new-hire wages — a signal of continued legislative hostility to post-employment restraints.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A 2017 study published by the United States Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies found that as a result of this ban, job mobility and new‑hire wages in the State increased by eleven per cent and four per cent, respectively.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/hawaii#src-sb1161-2025-extension"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}