{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "indiana", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Indiana", "description": "Indiana has no employee-invention-assignment statute, so an assignment clause is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the common-law default rules, and the federal patent overlay — not a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement. Absent an express assignment the inventor owns and the employer holds at most a shop right under Michels v. Dyna-Kote, and no Indiana decision found in our review addresses a post-employment holdover clause, which would most likely be judged under the reasonableness limits Indiana applies to employment restraints of trade.", "state": "Indiana", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "Indiana has no employee-invention-assignment statute, so an assignment clause is bounded only by ordinary contract law — construed strictly against the employer — the common-law default rules, and the federal patent overlay, not a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement; absent an express assignment the inventor owns and the employer holds at most a shop right under Michels v. Dyna-Kote, and no Indiana decision found in our review addresses a post-employment holdover clause, which would most likely be judged by analogy under the reasonableness limits Indiana applies to employment restraints of trade.", "keyLaw": "No Indiana invention-assignment statute; Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries, Inc., 497 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986); Central Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2008)", "statutoryCarveOut": "none", "defaultOwnership": "employee", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "unsettled", "carveOutScope": "Indiana has no statutory own-time carve-out; the reach of an assignment clause is limited only by ordinary contract law construed strictly against the employer, the common-law inventor-owns default (subject to the hired-to-invent exception and the employer's shop right), and the federal patent overlay." }, "about": [ "Indiana invention assignment", "Indiana no invention-assignment statute", "Indiana employee invention ownership", "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries", "Central Indiana Podiatry v. Krueger", "Indiana hired to invent", "Indiana shop right", "Indiana 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 an Indiana employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. Unlike California or neighboring Illinois, Indiana has no employee-invention-assignment statute — nothing that voids an assignment of a true own-time, own-resource invention — so an assignment clause's reach is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default, and the federal patent overlay. What Indiana adds is a strict-construction rule of its own: its courts read an employment agreement against the employer and will not move ownership the contract does not expressly grant.", "sources": [ { "id": "michels-no-express", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries, Inc.", "citation": "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries, Inc., 497 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2184212/michels-v-dyna-kote-industries-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2184212/michels-v-dyna-kote-industries-inc/#:~:text=we%20hold%20that%20there%20was,of%20the%20formulas%20in%20Dyna%2DKote", "proposition": "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries, construing an employment agreement strictly against the employer, holds that with no express contract giving the employer ownership of the employee's formulas, ownership did not pass — in Indiana the reach of an assignment obligation is set by the contract's express terms, not by any statute, and trade-secret law cannot substitute for an ownership term the employer never bargained for.", "verbatimQuote": "we hold that there was no express contract giving ownership of the formulas in Dyna-Kote", "date": "1986-09-16", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana#src-michels-no-express" }, { "id": "stanford-baseline", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems", "citation": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/#:~:text=Since%201790%2C%20the%20patent%20law,invention%20belong%20to%20the%20inventor.", "proposition": "Stanford v. Roche confirms the long-standing premise of U.S. patent law that rights in an invention belong to the inventor, the baseline against which any assignment clause is measured.", "verbatimQuote": "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.", "date": "2011-06-06", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana#src-stanford-baseline" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must an Indiana employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Indiana has no invention-assignment statute, there is no statutory carve-out to notify the employee about and no notice requirement of the kind California imposes under Labor Code § 2872 or Washington imposes under RCW 49.44.140(3). What Indiana enforces instead is contractual: disclosure and assignment duties exist only to the extent the agreement expressly creates them, and Indiana courts will not imply the missing promise.", "sources": [ { "id": "michels-express-terms", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries, Inc.", "citation": "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries, Inc., 497 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2184212/michels-v-dyna-kote-industries-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2184212/michels-v-dyna-kote-industries-inc/#:~:text=we%20hold%20that%20there%20was,of%20the%20formulas%20in%20Dyna%2DKote", "proposition": "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries confirms that in Indiana the only source of an employee's invention-assignment or disclosure duty is the express contract — the court, construing the agreement strictly against the employer, refused to find an ownership transfer the contract did not state, and no statute supplies a notice requirement or a carve-out to give notice of.", "verbatimQuote": "we hold that there was no express contract giving ownership of the formulas in Dyna-Kote", "date": "1986-09-16", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana#src-michels-express-terms" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Indiana?", "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 Indiana as elsewhere — is that rights belong to the employee who conceived it. The narrow exception is the employee hired to invent, and where the employee merely used the employer's resources, Indiana follows the shop-right rule: the employer acquires at most a license to use the invention, never ownership of it.", "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/indiana#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/indiana#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/indiana#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "michels-shop-right", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries, Inc.", "citation": "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries, Inc., 497 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2184212/michels-v-dyna-kote-industries-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2184212/michels-v-dyna-kote-industries-inc/#:~:text=it%20is%20true%20that%20an,employer's%20time%2C%20tools%2C%20and%20materials.", "proposition": "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries recognizes the shop-right rule in Indiana — an employer whose time, tools, and materials the employee used in developing an invention acquires at most a license or shop right to use it, not ownership of it.", "verbatimQuote": "it is true that an employer may acquire a license or shop right in the use of an employee invention when it is shown the employee expended his employer's time, tools, and materials.", "date": "1986-09-16", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana#src-michels-shop-right" }, { "id": "michels-hired-to-invent", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries, Inc.", "citation": "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries, Inc., 497 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2184212/michels-v-dyna-kote-industries-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2184212/michels-v-dyna-kote-industries-inc/#:~:text=Furthermore%2C%20the%20contract%20does%20not,Michels%20was%20hired%20to%20invent.", "proposition": "Michels v. Dyna-Kote Industries declines to apply the hired-to-invent exception where the contract did not state that the employee — hired to serve as the company's president — was hired to invent, confirming that in Indiana the exception is applied as written rather than implied.", "verbatimQuote": "Furthermore, the contract does not specifically state that Michels was hired to invent.", "date": "1986-09-16", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana#src-michels-hired-to-invent" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Indiana?", "answerText": "Reasonableness is the only limit — and by analogy, not by holding. Indiana has no statute capping a post-employment trailing assignment, and no Indiana decision found in our review squarely decides whether a clause reaching inventions first conceived after employment ends is enforceable. Indiana treats restraints arising from employment as disfavored, construes them strictly against the employer, and enforces them only if reasonable, so a court would most likely test an aggressive holdover clause under that doctrine rather than any invention-specific rule.", "sources": [ { "id": "krueger-strict", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Central Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger", "citation": "Central Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2008).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/852486/central-indiana-podiatry-pc-v-krueger/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/852486/central-indiana-podiatry-pc-v-krueger/#:~:text=We%20construe%20these%20covenants%20strictly,not%20enforce%20an%20unreasonable%20restriction.", "proposition": "Central Indiana Podiatry v. Krueger states the operative Indiana standard for employment restraints of trade — the covenant is construed strictly against the employer, an unreasonable restriction will not be enforced, and Indiana's blue-pencil doctrine permits only excision of severable unreasonable terms, not judicial rewriting.", "verbatimQuote": "We construe these covenants strictly against the employer and will not enforce an unreasonable restriction.", "date": "2008-03-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana#src-krueger-strict" }, { "id": "krueger-disfavored", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Central Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger", "citation": "Central Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2008).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/852486/central-indiana-podiatry-pc-v-krueger/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/852486/central-indiana-podiatry-pc-v-krueger/#:~:text=contracts%20are%20in%20restraint%20of,and%20disfavored%20by%20the%20law", "proposition": "Central Indiana Podiatry v. Krueger restates the Indiana Supreme Court's long-held rule that noncompetition covenants in employment contracts are restraints of trade and disfavored by the law.", "verbatimQuote": "contracts are in restraint of trade and disfavored by the law", "date": "2008-03-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana#src-krueger-disfavored" }, { "id": "guth-gross", "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=Assignments%20in%20gross%20of%20future%20inventions%20are%20not%20favored.", "proposition": "Guth v. Minnesota Mining, a pre-Erie Seventh Circuit decision that is persuasive rather than Indiana authority, struck limitless post-employment invention-assignment provisions as contrary to public policy while enforcing the reasonable during-employment portions, and described assignments in gross of future inventions as disfavored.", "verbatimQuote": "Assignments in gross of future inventions are not favored.", "date": "1934-06-29", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/indiana#src-guth-gross" } ] } ] } }