{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "maine", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Maine", "description": "Maine has no employee-invention-assignment statute, so an assignment clause is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the federal inventor-first baseline, and Maine's restrictive-covenant reasonableness line — not a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement. Maine's 2019 noncompete statute, 26 M.R.S. § 599-A, imposes real notice and ban rules, but only on contracts that prohibit working, not on ownership-allocating assignment clauses. Absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent, and a post-employment holdover clause would be judged under the covenant-reasonableness framework the Law Court has applied beyond noncompetes.", "state": "Maine", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-03", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "Maine has no employee-invention-assignment statute, so an assignment clause is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the federal inventor-first baseline, and Maine's restrictive-covenant reasonableness line; the 2019 noncompete statute (26 M.R.S. § 599-A) attaches its notice, ban, and delayed-effectiveness rules only to contracts that prohibit working, not to ownership-allocating assignment clauses; absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent; and a trailing clause would be judged under the covenant-reasonableness framework the Law Court has applied beyond noncompetes while favorably citing the leading holdover case.", "keyLaw": "No Maine invention-assignment statute; 26 M.R.S. § 599-A (noncompetes only); Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers, 2001 ME 17, 770 A.2d 97; Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)", "statutoryCarveOut": "none", "defaultOwnership": "employee", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "reasonablenessOnly", "carveOutScope": "Maine has no statutory own-time carve-out; the reach of an assignment clause is limited only by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default (subject to the hired-to-invent exception and the employer's shop right), the federal patent and copyright overlay, and — if a clause functions as a de facto noncompete — the reasonableness and ban machinery of 26 M.R.S. § 599-A." }, "about": [ "Maine invention assignment", "Maine no invention-assignment statute", "Maine employee invention ownership", "26 M.R.S. § 599-A", "Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers", "Maine holdover trailing assignment", "Maine shop right" ], "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 Maine employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. Unlike California or Washington, Maine has no employee-invention-assignment statute — nothing that voids an assignment of a true own-time, own-resource invention — so a clause's reach is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the federal inventor-first baseline, and Maine's restrictive-covenant reasonableness line, which lets a covenant protect confidential information but never the employee's general skill and knowledge.", "sources": [ { "id": "stanford-inventor-first-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/maine#src-stanford-inventor-first-baseline" }, { "id": "bernier-covenant-beyond-utsa", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers", "citation": "Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers, 2001 ME 17, 770 A.2d 97.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2361851/bernier-v-merrill-air-engineers/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2361851/bernier-v-merrill-air-engineers/#:~:text=The%20confidential%20knowledge%20or%20information,trade%20secret%20by%20the%20UTSA.", "proposition": "Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers holds that the confidential information a Maine restrictive covenant protects need not qualify as a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act — so a contract can reach more than the statutory trade-secret floor.", "verbatimQuote": "The confidential knowledge or information protected by a restrictive covenant need not be limited to information that is protected as a trade secret by the UTSA.", "date": "2001-01-24", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine#src-bernier-covenant-beyond-utsa" }, { "id": "roy-no-capture-general-skill", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Roy v. Bolduc", "citation": "Roy v. Bolduc, 140 Me. 103, 34 A.2d 479 (1943).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5122528/roy-v-bolduc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5122528/roy-v-bolduc/#:~:text=while%20an%20employer%2C%20under%20a,instructions%20while%20in%20the%20employment.", "proposition": "Roy v. Bolduc states the root Maine rule that a restrictive agreement may protect trade secrets, confidential knowledge, and customer relationships, but may not unnecessarily interfere with the employee's livelihood or capture the general skill and knowledge acquired through the employment.", "verbatimQuote": "while an employer, under a proper restrictive agreement, can prevent a former employee from using his trade or business secrets, and other confidential knowledge gained in the course of the employment, and from enticing away old customers, he has no right to unnecessarily interfere with the employee’s following any trade or calling for which he is fitted and from which he may earn his livelihood and he cannot preclude him from exercising the skill and general knowledge he has acquired or increased through experience or even instructions while in the employment.", "date": "1943-10-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine#src-roy-no-capture-general-skill" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must a Maine employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Maine 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). Maine does impose real pre-signing notice duties on employers — but only for noncompete agreements as 26 M.R.S. § 599-A defines them, and an ownership-allocating assignment clause is not one.", "sources": [ { "id": "me-599a-noncompete-definition", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "26 M.R.S. § 599-A", "citation": "26 M.R.S. § 599-A(1)(B).", "enactedCitation": "26 M.R.S. § 599-A", "url": "https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-A.html", "proposition": "26 M.R.S. § 599-A(1)(B) defines a noncompete agreement as a contract that prohibits working in the same or a similar profession or in a specified geographic area for a period after termination — a definition an ownership-allocating invention-assignment clause does not fit, and the statute contains no express exclusion or savings clause for such clauses.", "verbatimQuote": "prohibits an employee or prospective employee from working in the same or a similar profession or in a specified geographic area for a certain period of time following termination of employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine#src-me-599a-noncompete-definition" }, { "id": "me-599a-notice-regime", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "26 M.R.S. § 599-A", "citation": "26 M.R.S. § 599-A(4).", "enactedCitation": "26 M.R.S. § 599-A", "url": "https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-A.html", "proposition": "26 M.R.S. § 599-A(4) requires an employer to disclose before an offer that a noncompete will be required and to provide a copy at least three business days before signature — notice duties that attach only to defined noncompete agreements, not to invention-assignment clauses.", "verbatimQuote": "An employer shall disclose prior to an offer of employment with the employer that will require the acceptance of a noncompete agreement a statement that a noncompete agreement will be required.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine#src-me-599a-notice-regime" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Maine?", "answerText": "The inventor, unless hired to invent. No Maine statute and no Maine Law Court decision found in our review sets a state-specific default, so the baseline is the federal patent premise that rights belong to the employee who conceived the invention, with the hired-to-invent exception and the employer's shop right operating as the traditional common-law adjustments.", "sources": [ { "id": "stanford-default-inventor-owns", "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 that absent an effective assignment, rights in an invention belong to the inventor — the default that governs in Maine because no state statute or decision displaces it.", "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/maine#src-stanford-default-inventor-owns" }, { "id": "dubilier-hired-to-invent", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp.", "citation": "United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178 (1933).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1087847/united-states-v-dubilier-condenser-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1087847/united-states-v-dubilier-condenser-corp/#:~:text=One%20employed%20to%20make%20an,his%20employer%20any%20patent%20obtained.", "proposition": "United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. holds that an employee hired to make an invention who succeeds during the term of service is bound to assign the resulting patent to the employer — the hired-to-invent exception to the inventor-first default.", "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/maine#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "scott-shop-right-maine-soil", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Scott v. Madison Woolen Co.", "citation": "Scott v. Madison Woolen Co., 3 F.2d 331 (D. Me. 1925).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6757491/scott-v-madison-woolen-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6757491/scott-v-madison-woolen-co/#:~:text=the%20facts%20stated%20amply%20warrant,inequitable%20to%20grant%20an%20injunction.", "proposition": "Scott v. Madison Woolen Co., a 1925 federal district court decision from Maine applying the general federal doctrine, let the employee-inventor keep his patent while finding the employer had earned an implied irrevocable license (shop right) from the employee's use of the employer's time and materials.", "verbatimQuote": "the facts stated amply warrant the finding of an implied irrevocable license or shop right, and that it would be inequitable to grant an injunction.", "date": "1925-01-24", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine#src-scott-shop-right-maine-soil" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Maine?", "answerText": "Probably enforceable only to the extent reasonable. No Maine decision found in our review has adjudicated a trailing invention-assignment clause, and no statute caps its duration. But Maine would not approach one on a blank slate. The Law Court applies its restrictive-covenant reasonableness framework beyond noncompetes, and in doing so it has favorably cited the leading holdover-agreement case, so a Maine court asked to enforce a trailing clause would most likely test it for reasonableness rather than apply any invention-specific rule.", "sources": [ { "id": "chapman-lord-reasonableness-formula", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Chapman & Drake v. Harrington", "citation": "Chapman & Drake v. Harrington, 545 A.2d 645 (Me. 1988) (quoting Lord v. Lord, 454 A.2d 830, 834 (Me. 1983)).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1525107/chapman-drake-v-harrington/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1525107/chapman-drake-v-harrington/#:~:text=are%20contrary%20to%20public%20policy,the%20business%20interests%20in%20issue.", "proposition": "Chapman & Drake v. Harrington restates Maine's governing formula, quoting Lord v. Lord, that restrictive covenants are contrary to public policy and enforceable only to the extent they are reasonable and sweep no wider than necessary to protect the business interests in issue.", "verbatimQuote": "are contrary to public policy and will be enforced only to the extent that they are reasonable and sweep no wider than necessary to protect the business interests in issue.", "date": "1988-07-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine#src-chapman-lord-reasonableness-formula" }, { "id": "bernier-reasonableness-question-of-law", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers", "citation": "Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers, 2001 ME 17, 770 A.2d 97.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2361851/bernier-v-merrill-air-engineers/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2361851/bernier-v-merrill-air-engineers/#:~:text=To%20be%20enforceable%2C%20however%2C%20restrictive,is%20a%20question%20of%20law.", "proposition": "Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers applies Maine's covenant-reasonableness framework beyond noncompetes to a nondisclosure covenant and holds that reasonableness is a question of law — the framework a trailing invention-assignment clause would most likely face.", "verbatimQuote": "To be enforceable, however, restrictive covenants must be reasonable. The reasonableness of a restrictive covenant is a question of law.", "date": "2001-01-24", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine#src-bernier-reasonableness-question-of-law" }, { "id": "bernier-ingersoll-rand-holdover-parenthetical", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers", "citation": "Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers, 2001 ME 17, 770 A.2d 97 (citing Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Ciavatta, 110 N.J. 609, 542 A.2d 879, 894 (1988)).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2361851/bernier-v-merrill-air-engineers/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2361851/bernier-v-merrill-air-engineers/#:~:text=(construing%20a%20holdover%20agreement%20and,solely%20due%20to%20his%20employment%E2%80%9D).", "proposition": "Bernier v. Merrill Air Engineers favorably cites Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Ciavatta, the leading holdover invention-assignment case, with a parenthetical expressly describing it as construing a holdover agreement — the closest the Maine Law Court has come to addressing trailing assignment clauses, though as protectable-interest dicta in a nondisclosure case.", "verbatimQuote": "(construing a holdover agreement and recognizing that “employers may have legitimate interests in protecting information that is not a trade secret or proprietary information, but highly specialized, current information not generally known in the industry, created and stimulated by the research environment furnished by the employer, to which the employee has been ‘exposed’ and ‘enriched’ solely due to his employment”).", "date": "2001-01-24", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine#src-bernier-ingersoll-rand-holdover-parenthetical" }, { "id": "me-599a-codified-reasonableness", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "26 M.R.S. § 599-A", "citation": "26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2).", "enactedCitation": "26 M.R.S. § 599-A", "url": "https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/26/title26sec599-A.html", "proposition": "26 M.R.S. § 599-A(2) codifies Maine's common-law formula — noncompete agreements are contrary to public policy and enforceable only to the extent reasonable and no broader than necessary to protect legitimate business interests — so a trailing clause recharacterized as a noncompete would face the same reasonableness standard plus the statute's ban and penalty machinery.", "verbatimQuote": "Noncompete agreements are contrary to public policy and are enforceable only to the extent that they are reasonable and are no broader than necessary to protect one or more of the following legitimate business interests of the employer", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine#src-me-599a-codified-reasonableness" }, { "id": "brignull-continued-employment-consideration", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Brignull v. Albert", "citation": "Brignull v. Albert, 666 A.2d 82 (Me. 1995).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2381411/brignull-v-albert/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2381411/brignull-v-albert/#:~:text=Thus%20Albert%E2%80%99s%20continued%20employment%20by,to%20support%20the%20noncompetition%20agreement.", "proposition": "Brignull v. Albert holds that continued employment constitutes consideration supporting a restrictive covenant signed mid-employment, so a Maine invention-assignment agreement rolled out to existing employees does not fail for lack of fresh consideration.", "verbatimQuote": "Thus Albert’s continued employment by Brignull during a three-year period constitutes consideration to support the noncompetition agreement.", "date": "1995-10-17", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine#src-brignull-continued-employment-consideration" }, { "id": "chapman-as-applied-practice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Chapman & Drake v. Harrington", "citation": "Chapman & Drake v. Harrington, 545 A.2d 645 (Me. 1988).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1525107/chapman-drake-v-harrington/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1525107/chapman-drake-v-harrington/#:~:text=we%20assess%20that%20agreement%20only,enforced%20on%20its%20plain%20terms.", "proposition": "Chapman & Drake v. Harrington assessed a restrictive covenant only as the employer sought to apply it, not on its plain terms — Maine's as-applied softening device; no Law Court decision found in our review adopts or rejects reformation of a facially overbroad covenant.", "verbatimQuote": "we assess that agreement only as Chapman & Drake has sought to apply it and not as it might have been enforced on its plain terms.", "date": "1988-07-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine#src-chapman-as-applied-practice" }, { "id": "roy-general-skill-practice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Roy v. Bolduc", "citation": "Roy v. Bolduc, 140 Me. 103, 34 A.2d 479 (1943).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5122528/roy-v-bolduc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5122528/roy-v-bolduc/#:~:text=while%20an%20employer%2C%20under%20a,instructions%20while%20in%20the%20employment.", "proposition": "Roy v. Bolduc forbids a restrictive agreement from capturing the employee's general skill and knowledge or unnecessarily interfering with the employee's livelihood — the limit an overbroad trailing assignment would collide with in Maine.", "verbatimQuote": "while an employer, under a proper restrictive agreement, can prevent a former employee from using his trade or business secrets, and other confidential knowledge gained in the course of the employment, and from enticing away old customers, he has no right to unnecessarily interfere with the employee’s following any trade or calling for which he is fitted and from which he may earn his livelihood and he cannot preclude him from exercising the skill and general knowledge he has acquired or increased through experience or even instructions while in the employment.", "date": "1943-10-20", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/maine#src-roy-general-skill-practice" } ] } ] } }