{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "invention-assignment",
    "state": "illinois",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Illinois",
      "description": "Illinois's Employee Patent Act (765 ILCS 1060/2) voids any clause forcing an employee to assign an invention developed entirely on their own time, without the employer's resources, that neither relates to the employer's business or R&D nor results from the employee's work; the employer must give written notice of that carve-out at signing; and post-employment holdover clauses are enforceable only so far as reasonable.",
      "state": "Illinois",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-06-30",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "bottomLine": "Illinois's Employee Patent Act (765 ILCS 1060/2) voids any clause forcing an employee to assign an invention developed entirely on their own time, without the employer's resources, that neither relates to the employer's business or R&D nor results from the employee's work; the employer must give written notice of that carve-out; and post-employment \"holdover\" clauses are enforceable only so far as reasonable.",
        "keyLaw": "765 ILCS 1060/2 (Employee Patent Act); Guth v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 72 F.2d 385 (7th Cir. 1934); Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)",
        "statutoryCarveOut": "statute",
        "defaultOwnership": "employee",
        "employeeNoticeRequired": "yes",
        "holdoverClauseLimit": "reasonablenessOnly",
        "carveOutScope": "An invention the employee developed entirely on their own time, without the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade-secret information, that neither relates to the employer's business or actual/demonstrably anticipated R&D nor results from the employee's work — with the employee bearing the burden of proof."
      },
      "about": [
        "765 ILCS 1060 Employee Patent Act",
        "Illinois employee invention ownership",
        "Illinois invention assignment notice",
        "Illinois holdover trailing assignment",
        "Guth v. Minnesota Mining",
        "Stanford v. Roche present assignment",
        "Illinois own-time invention carve-out"
      ],
      "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 an Illinois employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "answerText": "No. The Illinois Employee Patent Act, 765 ILCS 1060/2, carves out a category of inventions that an assignment clause simply cannot reach: anything the employee developed entirely on their own time, without the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade-secret information, that neither relates to the employer's business or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development nor results from the employee's work. To the extent a clause purports to capture those own-time inventions, it is against the public policy of the state and void — and the employee bears the burden of proving that the invention qualifies.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "il-1060-2",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "765 ILCS 1060/2",
            "citation": "765 ILCS 1060/2(1).",
            "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/076510600K2.htm",
            "proposition": "Section 2(1) of the Illinois Employee Patent Act makes an assignment clause inapplicable to an invention the employee developed entirely on their own time without the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade-secret information, unless the invention relates to the employer's business or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or results from the employee's work; any provision purporting to reach such an invention is against the public policy of the state and void and unenforceable to that extent.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this State and is to that extent void and unenforceable.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois#src-il-1060-2"
          },
          {
            "id": "il-1060-2-burden",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "765 ILCS 1060/2",
            "citation": "765 ILCS 1060/2(1).",
            "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/076510600K2.htm",
            "proposition": "Section 2(1) places the burden of proof on the employee to establish that the invention qualifies for the own-time carve-out.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The employee shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that his invention qualifies under this subsection.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois#src-il-1060-2-burden"
          },
          {
            "id": "il-1060-2-condition",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "765 ILCS 1060/2",
            "citation": "765 ILCS 1060/2(2).",
            "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/076510600K2.htm",
            "proposition": "Section 2(2) bars an employer from requiring a provision made void and unenforceable by subsection (1) as a condition of employment or continuing employment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer shall not require a provision made void and unenforceable by subsection (1) of this Section as a condition of employment or continuing employment.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois#src-il-1060-2-condition"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "employee-notice",
        "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?",
        "heading": "Must an Illinois employer notify the employee?",
        "answerText": "Yes. Section 2(3) requires an employer whose agreement contains an invention-assignment provision to give the employee, at the time the agreement is made, a written notification that the agreement does not apply to a qualifying own-time, own-resource invention. The statute does not say what happens if the employer omits that notice, and no Illinois case in our review decides whether a missing notice voids an otherwise valid clause — so the cautious course is to treat the notice as mandatory.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "il-1060-2-notice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "765 ILCS 1060/2",
            "citation": "765 ILCS 1060/2(3).",
            "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/076510600K2.htm",
            "proposition": "Section 2(3) requires an employer whose agreement contains an assignment provision to give the employee, at the time the agreement is made, a written notification that the agreement does not apply to a qualifying own-time, own-resource invention.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If an employment agreement entered into after January 1, 1984, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois#src-il-1060-2-notice"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "default-ownership",
        "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?",
        "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Illinois?",
        "answerText": "The inventor. Absent a written assignment, the baseline rule under federal patent law — which governs who holds title to a patentable invention in Illinois as elsewhere — is that rights belong to the employee who conceived it. The U.S. Supreme Court restated that premise in Stanford v. Roche, and although others may acquire an interest, that interest must trace back to the inventor. Illinois's Employee Patent Act expressly preserves an employer's common-law shop rights against employees who never signed an agreement, and the hired-to-invent doctrine can give an employer title where the employee was engaged specifically to invent — but a written present-assignment clause remains the dependable route to ownership.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "stanford-inventor-ownership",
            "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/illinois#src-stanford-inventor-ownership"
          },
          {
            "id": "stanford-traceback-ownership",
            "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/illinois#src-stanford-traceback-ownership"
          },
          {
            "id": "il-1060-2-shopright",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "765 ILCS 1060/2",
            "citation": "765 ILCS 1060/2(2).",
            "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/076510600K2.htm",
            "proposition": "Section 2(2) provides that the Illinois Employee Patent Act does not preempt existing common law applicable to an employer's shop rights with respect to employees who have not signed an employment agreement.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This Act shall not preempt existing common law applicable to any shop rights of employers with respect to employees who have not signed an employment agreement.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois#src-il-1060-2-shopright"
          },
          {
            "id": "dubilier-hired-ownership",
            "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,to%20the%20contract%20of%20employment.",
            "proposition": "United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. states the hired-to-invent doctrine: an employee engaged specifically to make an invention who accomplishes that task is bound to assign any resulting patent to the employer, because the invention is the precise subject of the employment.",
            "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. The reason is that he has only produced that which he was employed to invent. His invention is the precise subject to the contract of employment.",
            "date": "1933-05-08",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois#src-dubilier-hired-ownership"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "holdover-clause-limit",
        "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Illinois?",
        "answerText": "Only so far as they are reasonable. Illinois has no statute that caps a post-employment trailing-assignment (holdover) clause, so its enforceability is governed by the general public-policy limits on invention-assignment covenants. The Seventh Circuit's decision in Guth v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. is the leading statement of those limits: a provision that is limitless in time and in subject matter is contrary to public policy, but a court will enforce the covenants that are reasonable and sever those that are not.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "guth-recognized",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Guth v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.",
            "citation": "Guth v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 72 F.2d 385 (7th Cir. 1934).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1549623/guth-v-minnesota-mining-mfg-co/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1549623/guth-v-minnesota-mining-mfg-co/#:~:text=The%20right%20of%20an%20employer,certain%20limits%20is%20well%20recognized.",
            "proposition": "Guth recognizes that an employer may contract for its employees' patentable discoveries, but only within certain limits.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The right of an employer to contract for patentable discoveries made by its employee within certain limits is well recognized.",
            "date": "1934-07-30",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois#src-guth-recognized"
          },
          {
            "id": "guth-holdover",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Guth v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.",
            "citation": "Guth v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 72 F.2d 385 (7th Cir. 1934).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1549623/guth-v-minnesota-mining-mfg-co/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1549623/guth-v-minnesota-mining-mfg-co/#:~:text=those%20provisions%20of%20the%20contract,were%20contrary%20to%20public%20policy.",
            "proposition": "Guth holds that invention-assignment provisions limitless in extent of time and in subject matter of invention are contrary to public policy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "those provisions of the contract which were limitless in extent of time and in subject matter of invention were contrary to public policy.",
            "date": "1934-07-30",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois#src-guth-holdover"
          },
          {
            "id": "guth-divisible",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Guth v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.",
            "citation": "Guth v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 72 F.2d 385 (7th Cir. 1934).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1549623/guth-v-minnesota-mining-mfg-co/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1549623/guth-v-minnesota-mining-mfg-co/#:~:text=Some%20of%20the%20covenants%20are,specific%20performance%20of%20such%20contracts).",
            "proposition": "Guth treats the invention-assignment contract as divisible: the covenants contrary to public policy are unenforceable while the reasonable covenants remain valid and enforceable in equity.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Some of the covenants are contrary to public policy and non-enforceable. Others are valid and enforceable in a court of equity (although courts are not required in all cases to grant the specific performance of such contracts).",
            "date": "1934-07-30",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois#src-guth-divisible"
          },
          {
            "id": "il-1060-2-notice-practice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "765 ILCS 1060/2",
            "citation": "765 ILCS 1060/2(3).",
            "url": "https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/076510600K2.htm",
            "proposition": "Section 2(3) requires an employer whose agreement contains an assignment provision to give the employee, at the time the agreement is made, a written notification that the agreement does not apply to a qualifying own-time, own-resource invention.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If an employment agreement entered into after January 1, 1984, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/illinois#src-il-1060-2-notice-practice"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}