{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "invention-assignment",
    "state": "kansas",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Kansas",
      "description": "Kansas's K.S.A. 44-130 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": "Kansas",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-06-30",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "bottomLine": "Kansas's invention-assignment statute (K.S.A. 44-130) 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": "K.S.A. 44-130; Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, 970 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2020); 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."
      },
      "about": [
        "K.S.A. 44-130 invention assignment",
        "Kansas employee invention ownership",
        "Kansas invention assignment notice",
        "Kansas hired to invent",
        "Farmers Edge v. Farmobile",
        "Stanford v. Roche",
        "Kansas 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 a Kansas employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "answerText": "No. K.S.A. 44-130 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 unenforceable.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "ks-44-130",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "K.S.A. 44-130",
            "citation": "K.S.A. 44-130(a).",
            "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch44/044_001_0030.html",
            "proposition": "K.S.A. 44-130(a) 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 its actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or results from the employee's work.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Any 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 shall 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: (1) The invention relates to the business of the employer or to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development; or (2) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas#src-ks-44-130"
          },
          {
            "id": "ks-44-130-void",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "K.S.A. 44-130",
            "citation": "K.S.A. 44-130(b).",
            "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch44/044_001_0030.html",
            "proposition": "K.S.A. 44-130(b) declares any provision purporting to apply to an own-time, own-resource invention outside the statute's exceptions to that extent against the public policy of the state and void and unenforceable, and bars an employer from requiring such a void provision as a condition of employment or continuing employment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Any provision in an employment agreement which purports to apply to an invention which it is prohibited from applying to under subsection (a), is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent void and unenforceable. No employer shall require a provision made void and unenforceable by this section as a condition of employment or continuing employment.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas#src-ks-44-130-void"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "employee-notice",
        "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?",
        "heading": "Must a Kansas employer notify the employee?",
        "answerText": "Yes. K.S.A. 44-130(c) requires an employer whose agreement contains an invention-assignment provision to provide 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. No Kansas court has construed the statute, so the remedy for a missing notice is unsettled — no case addressing it turned up in our review — but the obligation is written as a mandatory command, and a drafter should treat it as such.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "ks-44-130-notice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "K.S.A. 44-130",
            "citation": "K.S.A. 44-130(c).",
            "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch44/044_001_0030.html",
            "proposition": "K.S.A. 44-130(c) requires an employer whose agreement contains an assignment provision to provide 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, and phrases the exception as an invention that relates directly to the employer's business.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If an employment agreement contains a provision requiring the employee to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer, the employer shall provide, at the time the agreement is made, 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, unless: (1) The invention relates directly to the business of the employer or to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development; or (2) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas#src-ks-44-130-notice"
          },
          {
            "id": "ks-44-130-disclose",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "K.S.A. 44-130",
            "citation": "K.S.A. 44-130(d).",
            "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch44/044_001_0030.html",
            "proposition": "K.S.A. 44-130(d) requires the employee, even after meeting the burden of proving the carve-out conditions, to disclose at the time of employment or thereafter all inventions being developed, for the purpose of determining employer and employee rights.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Even though the employee meets the burden of proving the conditions specified in this section, the employee shall disclose, at the time of employment or thereafter, all inventions being developed by the employee, for the purpose of determining employer and employee rights in an invention.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas#src-ks-44-130-disclose"
          },
          {
            "id": "ks-44-130-void-consequence",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "K.S.A. 44-130",
            "citation": "K.S.A. 44-130(b).",
            "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch44/044_001_0030.html",
            "proposition": "K.S.A. 44-130(b) makes an assignment provision void, unenforceable, and against Kansas public policy to the extent it purports to apply to an invention subsection (a) protects from assignment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Any provision in an employment agreement which purports to apply to an invention which it is prohibited from applying to under subsection (a), 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/kansas#src-ks-44-130-void-consequence"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "default-ownership",
        "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?",
        "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Kansas?",
        "answerText": "The inventor. Absent a written assignment, the baseline rule under federal patent law — which governs who holds title to a patentable invention in Kansas 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. The narrow hired-to-invent overlay can give an employer equitable title, but only where the employee was specifically directed to invent — so a Kansas employer depends on a written present-assignment clause to take title reliably.",
        "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/kansas#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/kansas#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": "Dubilier states the hired-to-invent baseline: an employee employed to make an invention who accomplishes that task 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/kansas#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent"
          },
          {
            "id": "farmers-edge-hired",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC",
            "citation": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, 970 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2020).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4775779/farmers-edge-inc-v-farmobile-llc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4775779/farmers-edge-inc-v-farmobile-llc/#:~:text=To%20prevail%20on%20its%20hired%2Dto%2Dinvent,specific%20direction%20from%20their%20employer.",
            "proposition": "Farmers Edge v. Farmobile states the hired-to-invent standard: to prevail on a hired-to-invent theory, the employer must show the employee was given a certain amount of specific direction to invent — a general federal patent common-law rule a Kansas court would most likely follow, as no on-point Kansas decision turned up in our review.",
            "verbatimQuote": "To prevail on its hired-to-invent theory based on an implied contract, FEI must show that the employees were given a certain amount of specific direction from their employer.",
            "date": "2020-08-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas#src-farmers-edge-hired"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "holdover-clause-limit",
        "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Kansas?",
        "answerText": "Only so far as reasonable. K.S.A. 44-130 caps what an assignment clause may reach during employment, but it says nothing about a clause reaching inventions conceived after the employment ends, and no Kansas case found in our review squarely limits an invention holdover. Kansas does, though, enforce a post-employment restrictive covenant only when the restraint is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare, so a trailing-assignment clause reaching post-employment inventions would most likely be measured against that same reasonableness standard.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "ks-44-130-holdover",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "K.S.A. 44-130",
            "citation": "K.S.A. 44-130(b).",
            "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch44/044_001_0030.html",
            "proposition": "K.S.A. 44-130(b) voids any provision purporting to apply to a qualifying own-time invention during employment, but imposes no durational cap and is silent about clauses reaching inventions conceived after employment ends.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Any provision in an employment agreement which purports to apply to an invention which it is prohibited from applying to under subsection (a), 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/kansas#src-ks-44-130-holdover"
          },
          {
            "id": "ks-weber-reasonable",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Weber v. Tillman",
            "citation": "Weber v. Tillman, 259 Kan. 457, 464, 913 P.2d 84 (1996).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7969238/weber-v-tillman/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7969238/weber-v-tillman/#:~:text=A%20noncompetition%20covenant%20ancillary%20to,adverse%20to%20the%20public%20welfare.",
            "proposition": "Weber v. Tillman states the settled Kansas standard for post-employment restraints — a noncompetition covenant ancillary to an employment contract is enforceable only if the restraint is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare; applying that standard to an invention holdover is a prediction, as no Kansas decision found in our review has done so.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A noncompetition covenant ancillary to an employment contract is valid and enforceable if the restraint is reasonable under the circumstances and not adverse to the public welfare.",
            "date": "1996-03-08",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas#src-ks-weber-reasonable"
          },
          {
            "id": "ks-44-130-notice-practice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "K.S.A. 44-130",
            "citation": "K.S.A. 44-130(c).",
            "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch44/044_001_0030.html",
            "proposition": "K.S.A. 44-130(c) requires an employer whose agreement contains an assignment provision to provide 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, and phrases the exception as an invention that relates directly to the employer's business.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If an employment agreement contains a provision requiring the employee to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer, the employer shall provide, at the time the agreement is made, 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, unless: (1) The invention relates directly to the business of the employer or to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development; or (2) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas#src-ks-44-130-notice-practice"
          },
          {
            "id": "ks-44-130-disclose-practice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "K.S.A. 44-130",
            "citation": "K.S.A. 44-130(d).",
            "url": "https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch44/044_001_0030.html",
            "proposition": "K.S.A. 44-130(d) requires the employee, even after meeting the burden of proving the carve-out conditions, to disclose at the time of employment or thereafter all inventions being developed, for the purpose of determining employer and employee rights.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Even though the employee meets the burden of proving the conditions specified in this section, the employee shall disclose, at the time of employment or thereafter, all inventions being developed by the employee, for the purpose of determining employer and employee rights in an invention.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/kansas#src-ks-44-130-disclose-practice"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}