{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "invention-assignment",
    "state": "michigan",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Michigan",
      "description": "Michigan 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 and copyright overlay — not a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement. Absent a written assignment the inventor-employee owns unless hired to invent, with the employer holding at most a shop right, and a post-employment holdover clause is tested for reasonableness — a federal court applying Michigan law held an indefinite trailing-assignment clause invalid as an unreasonable restraint of trade.",
      "state": "Michigan",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "bottomLine": "Michigan has no employee-invention-assignment statute, so an assignment clause is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default, and Michigan reasonableness limits on restraints of trade — not a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement; absent a written assignment the inventor-employee owns and the employer gets at most a shop right unless the employee was hired to invent, and a post-employment holdover clause is tested only for reasonableness — a federal court applying Michigan law held an indefinite trailing-assignment clause invalid as an unreasonable restraint of trade, though no Michigan state appellate decision found in our review is squarely on point.",
        "keyLaw": "No Michigan invention-assignment statute; A & C Engineering Co. v. Atherholt, 355 Mich. 677 (1959); Federal Screw Works v. Interface Systems, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 1562 (E.D. Mich. 1983); Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774a",
        "statutoryCarveOut": "none",
        "defaultOwnership": "employee",
        "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a",
        "holdoverClauseLimit": "reasonablenessOnly",
        "carveOutScope": "Michigan 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), and reasonableness limits on restraints of trade where a trailing clause operates as a post-employment restraint."
      },
      "about": [
        "Michigan invention assignment",
        "Michigan no invention-assignment statute",
        "Michigan employee invention ownership",
        "A & C Engineering Co. v. Atherholt",
        "Federal Screw Works v. Interface Systems",
        "Michigan hired to invent",
        "Michigan shop right",
        "Michigan 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 a Michigan employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. Unlike California or New York, Michigan has no employee-invention-assignment statute — nothing that voids an assignment of a true own-time, own-resource invention and no statutory limit on what an assignment clause may capture — so the clause's reach is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default, and, where the clause operates as a post-employment restraint, Michigan's reasonableness limits on restraints of trade. The baseline the contract is written against is that the individual inventor owns, even for inventions conceived on the job.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "banks-general-rule",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Banks v. Unisys Corp.",
            "citation": "Banks v. Unisys Corp., 228 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2000).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/770700/gerald-banks-and-kelly-banks-v-unisys-corporation-and-burroughs/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/770700/gerald-banks-and-kelly-banks-v-unisys-corporation-and-burroughs/#:~:text=The%20general%20rule%20is%20that,the%20course%20of%20his%20employment.",
            "proposition": "Banks v. Unisys Corp., a Federal Circuit decision arising out of Michigan employment, states the modern general rule that an individual owns the patent rights to the subject matter of which he is an inventor even though he conceived it or reduced it to practice in the course of his employment — the default a Michigan assignment clause is drafted against.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The general rule is that an individual owns the patent rights to the subject matter of which he is an inventor, even though he conceived it or reduced it to practice in the course of his employment.",
            "date": "2000-09-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-banks-general-rule"
          },
          {
            "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/michigan#src-stanford-baseline"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "employee-notice",
        "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?",
        "heading": "Must a Michigan employer notify the employee?",
        "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Michigan 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). Assignment and disclosure duties in Michigan arise from the parties' agreement, and the Michigan Supreme Court does not even require that the agreement be express — an understanding fairly inferred from the facts can support a decree compelling assignment.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "ac-engineering-implied-agreement",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "A & C Engineering Co. v. Atherholt",
            "citation": "A & C Engineering Co. v. Atherholt, 355 Mich. 677, 95 N.W.2d 871 (1959).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1241036/a-c-engineering-co-v-atherholt/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1241036/a-c-engineering-co-v-atherholt/#:~:text=It%20is%20sufficient%20that%20such,inferred%20from%20the%20facts%20pleaded.",
            "proposition": "A & C Engineering Co. v. Atherholt holds that an agreement to assign an invention need not be express — an agreement or understanding fairly inferred from the facts is sufficient — showing that Michigan assignment and disclosure duties arise from the parties' agreement rather than from any notice-requiring statute.",
            "verbatimQuote": "It is sufficient that such an agreement or understanding can fairly be inferred from the facts pleaded.",
            "date": "1959-04-13",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-ac-engineering-implied-agreement"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "default-ownership",
        "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?",
        "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Michigan?",
        "answerText": "The inventor-employee, unless hired to invent. The Michigan Supreme Court's stated default is that, absent an express agreement to the contrary, inventions belong to the inventor-employee rather than the employer — even inventions conceived, developed, and patented on the employer's time and at its expense — with the employer entitled only to a shop right. The exception is the employee hired to invent, whose resulting invention the employer may claim.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "ac-engineering-shop-right",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "A & C Engineering Co. v. Atherholt",
            "citation": "A & C Engineering Co. v. Atherholt, 355 Mich. 677, 95 N.W.2d 871 (1959).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1241036/a-c-engineering-co-v-atherholt/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1241036/a-c-engineering-co-v-atherholt/#:~:text=There%20is%20authority%20in%20Michigan,time%20and%20at%20its%20expense.",
            "proposition": "A & C Engineering Co. v. Atherholt states the Michigan default that, absent an express agreement to the contrary, an invention belongs to the inventor-employee rather than the employer, with the employer entitled only to a shop right, even for inventions conceived, developed, and patented on the employer's time and at its expense.",
            "verbatimQuote": "There is authority in Michigan that in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary inventions belong to the inventor-employee rather than his employer, and that the employer is entitled only to a “shop-right” therein, notwithstanding that the invention was conceived, developed and patented on the employer’s time and at its expense.",
            "date": "1959-04-13",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-ac-engineering-shop-right"
          },
          {
            "id": "detroit-testing-employee-owns",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Detroit Testing Laboratory v. Robison",
            "citation": "Detroit Testing Laboratory v. Robison, 221 Mich. 442, 191 N.W. 218 (1922).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7998246/detroit-testing-laboratory-v-robison/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7998246/detroit-testing-laboratory-v-robison/#:~:text=He%20was%20not%20hired%20to,of%20patentable%20ideas%20for%20plaintiff.",
            "proposition": "Detroit Testing Laboratory v. Robison, the root of Michigan's employee-ownership default, holds that an employee who was not hired to invent keeps his patent even though the invention was developed on the employer's time and with its facilities.",
            "verbatimQuote": "He was not hired to exercise his inventive genius in the discovery of patentable ideas for plaintiff.",
            "date": "1922-12-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-detroit-testing-employee-owns"
          },
          {
            "id": "gear-grinding-hired-to-invent",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Gear Grinding Machine Co. v. Stuber",
            "citation": "Gear Grinding Machine Co. v. Stuber, 282 Mich. 455, 276 N.W. 514 (1937).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3522278/gear-grinding-machine-co-v-stuber/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3522278/gear-grinding-machine-co-v-stuber/#:~:text=We%20agree%20with%20plaintiff%20that,an%20assignment%20of%20the%20patent.",
            "proposition": "Gear Grinding Machine Co. v. Stuber recognizes Michigan's hired-to-invent exception — had the employee been employed to devise the improvement at issue, the employer would be entitled to an assignment of the patent — while holding that the draftsman there was not hired to invent and so kept his patent.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We agree with plaintiff that if defendant had been employed to devise a new universal joint or make improvements in the Rzeppa joint, plaintiff would be entitled to an assignment of the patent.",
            "date": "1937-12-14",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-gear-grinding-hired-to-invent"
          },
          {
            "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. states the federal formulation of the hired-to-invent rule — an employee employed to make an invention who succeeds during the term of service must assign the resulting patent — a formulation the Michigan Supreme Court quoted with approval in Gear Grinding.",
            "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/michigan#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent"
          },
          {
            "id": "gear-grinding-reduce-to-writing",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Gear Grinding Machine Co. v. Stuber",
            "citation": "Gear Grinding Machine Co. v. Stuber, 282 Mich. 455, 276 N.W. 514 (1937).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3522278/gear-grinding-machine-co-v-stuber/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3522278/gear-grinding-machine-co-v-stuber/#:~:text=The%20case%20illustrates%20the%20advisability,shall%20belong%20to%20the%20employer.",
            "proposition": "Gear Grinding Machine Co. v. Stuber admonishes that where the parties contemplate that inventions made by an employee during the course of his work will belong to the employer, the contract relations should be reduced to writing — the Michigan Supreme Court's own drafting lesson from a case the employer lost for want of such an agreement.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The case illustrates the advisability of reducing contract relations to writing where the parties contemplate that any invention made by an employee during the course of his work shall belong to the employer.",
            "date": "1937-12-14",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-gear-grinding-reduce-to-writing"
          },
          {
            "id": "omni-present-assignment",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc.",
            "citation": "Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 7 F.4th 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2021).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4904581/omni-medsci-inc-v-apple-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4904581/omni-medsci-inc-v-apple-inc/#:~:text=reflects%20a%20future%20agreement%20to%20assign",
            "proposition": "Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., construing a University of Michigan bylaw providing that certain patents shall be the property of the university, holds that such language at most reflects a future agreement to assign rather than a present assignment — so title did not pass automatically, and drafters who want automatic transfer need present-assignment wording.",
            "verbatimQuote": "reflects a future agreement to assign",
            "date": "2021-08-02",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-omni-present-assignment"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "holdover-clause-limit",
        "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Michigan?",
        "answerText": "Only if reasonable. Michigan has no statute specifically addressing post-employment trailing-assignment clauses and no fixed temporal cap, and no Michigan state appellate decision found in our review is squarely on point. The decision that is on point — a federal district court applying Michigan law — held an indefinite trailing-assignment clause invalid as an unreasonable restraint of trade, and every framework a modern Michigan court might bring to such a clause, statutory or common-law, tests it for reasonableness.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "fsw-not-reasonable-to-confiscate",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Federal Screw Works v. Interface Systems, Inc.",
            "citation": "Federal Screw Works v. Interface Systems, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 1562 (E.D. Mich. 1983).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1518444/federal-screw-works-v-interface-systems-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1518444/federal-screw-works-v-interface-systems-inc/#:~:text=It%20would%20be%20reasonable%20to,Interface%20might%20have%20an%20interest.",
            "proposition": "Federal Screw Works v. Interface Systems, applying Michigan law, held an indefinite trailing invention-assignment clause invalid as an unreasonable restraint of trade, reasoning that restricting ex-employees from using information gathered at the company would be reasonable but confiscating all new inventions in which the company might have an interest is not.",
            "verbatimQuote": "It would be reasonable to restrict these ex-employees from using information gathered at Interface. It is not reasonable to confiscate all new inventions made by the employees for which Interface might have an interest.",
            "date": "1983-09-12",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-fsw-not-reasonable-to-confiscate"
          },
          {
            "id": "fsw-indefinite-duration",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Federal Screw Works v. Interface Systems, Inc.",
            "citation": "Federal Screw Works v. Interface Systems, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 1562 (E.D. Mich. 1983).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1518444/federal-screw-works-v-interface-systems-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1518444/federal-screw-works-v-interface-systems-inc/#:~:text=The%20agreements%20in%20question%20are,an%20indefinite%20period%20of%20time.",
            "proposition": "Federal Screw Works v. Interface Systems emphasized that the trailing-assignment agreements it held invalid ran for an indefinite period — open-ended duration counts heavily against a holdover clause under Michigan reasonableness analysis.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The agreements in question are for an indefinite period of time.",
            "date": "1983-09-12",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-fsw-indefinite-duration"
          },
          {
            "id": "fsw-overbroad",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Federal Screw Works v. Interface Systems, Inc.",
            "citation": "Federal Screw Works v. Interface Systems, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 1562 (E.D. Mich. 1983).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1518444/federal-screw-works-v-interface-systems-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1518444/federal-screw-works-v-interface-systems-inc/#:~:text=It%20is%20hard%20to%20imagine,more%20restrictive%20or%20overbroad%20agreement.",
            "proposition": "Federal Screw Works v. Interface Systems characterized the indefinite, contemplated-field trailing-assignment clause before it as an extraordinarily restrictive and overbroad agreement.",
            "verbatimQuote": "It is hard to imagine a more restrictive or overbroad agreement.",
            "date": "1983-09-12",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-fsw-overbroad"
          },
          {
            "id": "st-clair-reasonableness",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "St. Clair Medical, P.C. v. Borgiel",
            "citation": "St. Clair Medical, P.C. v. Borgiel, 270 Mich. App. 260, 715 N.W.2d 914 (2006).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2026165/st-clair-medical-pc-v-borgiel/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2026165/st-clair-medical-pc-v-borgiel/#:~:text=To%20be%20reasonable%20in%20relation,using%20general%20knowledge%20or%20skill.",
            "proposition": "St. Clair Medical, P.C. v. Borgiel states the operative reasonableness test under MCL 445.774a — a restrictive covenant must protect against the employee gaining some unfair advantage in competition with the employer but may not prohibit the employee from using general knowledge or skill — the framework a Michigan court would bring to a post-employment restraint.",
            "verbatimQuote": "To be reasonable in relation to an employer's competitive business interest, a restrictive covenant must protect against the employee's gaining some unfair advantage in competition with the employer, but not prohibit the employee from using general knowledge or skill.",
            "date": "2006-05-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-st-clair-reasonableness"
          },
          {
            "id": "mcl-445-774a-reasonableness",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774a",
            "citation": "Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.774a(1).",
            "url": "https://legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-445-774a",
            "proposition": "MCL 445.774a(1) supplies Michigan's statutory reasonableness framework for post-employment restrictive covenants — an employer may obtain a covenant protecting reasonable competitive business interests if it is reasonable as to duration, geographical area, and type of employment, and a court may limit an unreasonable covenant to render it reasonable — the modern statutory backdrop a holdover clause would face if treated as a restrictive covenant.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer may obtain from an employee an agreement or covenant which protects an employer's reasonable competitive business interests and expressly prohibits an employee from engaging in employment or a line of business after termination of employment if the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, and the type of employment or line of business. To the extent any such agreement or covenant is found to be unreasonable in any respect, a court may limit the agreement to render it reasonable in light of the circumstances in which it was made and specifically enforce the agreement as limited.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-mcl-445-774a-reasonableness"
          },
          {
            "id": "mcl-445-772-restraint",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.772",
            "citation": "Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.772.",
            "url": "https://legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-445-772",
            "proposition": "MCL 445.772, the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act's general restraint provision, makes contracts in restraint of trade in a relevant market unlawful — the candidate statutory hook for a trailing assignment clause if § 445.774a's noncompete-specific text is held not to reach it.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A contract, combination, or conspiracy between 2 or more persons in restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce in a relevant market is unlawful.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-mcl-445-772-restraint"
          },
          {
            "id": "omni-present-assignment-practice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc.",
            "citation": "Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 7 F.4th 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2021).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4904581/omni-medsci-inc-v-apple-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4904581/omni-medsci-inc-v-apple-inc/#:~:text=reflects%20a%20future%20agreement%20to%20assign",
            "proposition": "Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., construing a University of Michigan bylaw providing that certain patents shall be the property of the university, holds that such language at most reflects a future agreement to assign rather than a present assignment — so title did not pass automatically, and drafters who want automatic transfer need present-assignment wording.",
            "verbatimQuote": "reflects a future agreement to assign",
            "date": "2021-08-02",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/michigan#src-omni-present-assignment-practice"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}