{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/missouri", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/missouri.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/missouri", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/missouri/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/missouri/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "missouri", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Missouri", "description": "Missouri has no employee-invention-assignment statute — the only invention statutes in RSMo Chapter 417 are a consumer-protection law for invention-developer services and the trade-secrets act — 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 employee owns the invention, with at most an equitable shop right in the employer, and no Missouri decision found in our review squarely tests a post-employment holdover clause, which would most likely be judged under Missouri's general reasonableness limits on employment restraints.", "state": "Missouri", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "Missouri has no employee-invention-assignment statute — the only invention statutes in RSMo Chapter 417 regulate invention-developer services sold to consumers and trade secrets — so an assignment clause is bounded only by ordinary contract law, the common-law inventor-owns default, and the federal patent and copyright overlay. Absent a written assignment the employee owns the invention, with at most an equitable shop right (a non-exclusive license, not ownership) in the employer, and no Missouri appellate decision found in our review squarely adjudicates a trailing-assignment clause, so a holdover clause would most likely be tested by analogy under Missouri's general reasonableness limits on restraints arising from employment.", "keyLaw": "No Missouri invention-assignment statute; Dewey v. American Stair Glide Corp., 557 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977); Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, 824 S.W.2d 92 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1992)", "statutoryCarveOut": "none", "defaultOwnership": "employee", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "unsettled", "carveOutScope": "Missouri has no statutory own-time carve-out; the reach of an assignment clause is limited only by ordinary contract law, the common-law employee-owns default (subject to the hired-to-invent exception and the employer's shop right), and the federal patent and copyright overlay." }, "about": [ "Missouri invention assignment", "Missouri no invention-assignment statute", "Missouri employee invention ownership", "Dewey v. American Stair Glide Corp.", "Missouri shop right", "Corrigan v. Armstrong Teasdale", "Missouri 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 Missouri employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. Unlike California or Washington, Missouri 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 and copyright overlay. The baseline the contract operates against is that rights in an invention belong to the inventor, and Missouri's own appellate courts, applying the federal framework, have emphasized that an employer with no assignment has no claim to a conveyance of the employee's own conception.", "sources": [ { "id": "stanford-carveout-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/missouri#src-stanford-carveout-baseline" }, { "id": "corrigan-no-conveyance", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & Dicus", "citation": "Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & Dicus, 824 S.W.2d 92 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1992) (quoting United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178 (1933)).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2430352/corrigan-v-armstrong-teasdale-schlafly-davis-dicus/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2430352/corrigan-v-armstrong-teasdale-schlafly-davis-dicus/#:~:text=has%20no%20equity%20to%20demand,the%20employer%20had%20no%20part.", "proposition": "Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, quoting United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., holds that an employer who has not taken an assignment has no equity to demand a conveyance of an invention that is the employee's own conception — so in Missouri the reach of an assignment turns on the contract, not on any statutory allocation to the employer.", "verbatimQuote": "has no equity to demand a conveyance of the invention, which is the original conception of the employee alone, in which the employer had no part.", "date": "1992-01-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/missouri#src-corrigan-no-conveyance" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must a Missouri employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Missouri 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 Missouri law supplies instead is fact-specific common-law doctrine — courts examine the parties' agreement and the circumstances of the invention itself, and even the employer-protective shop right turns on a case-by-case weighing of whose time and materials produced the invention, not on any statutory disclosure formality.", "sources": [ { "id": "dewey-common-law-framework", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Dewey v. American Stair Glide Corp.", "citation": "Dewey v. American Stair Glide Corp., 557 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1737795/dewey-v-american-stair-glide-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1737795/dewey-v-american-stair-glide-corp/#:~:text=The%20use%20of%20the%20small,to%20establish%20a%20shop%20right.", "proposition": "Dewey v. American Stair Glide Corp. shows that Missouri resolves employer claims to employee inventions through fact-specific common-law shop-right analysis — weighing the company time and materials actually used — rather than through any statutory carve-out or notice framework.", "verbatimQuote": "The use of the small amount of company materials and equipment is not sufficient to establish a shop right.", "date": "1977-10-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/missouri#src-dewey-common-law-framework" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Missouri?", "answerText": "The employee. Absent a written assignment, Missouri follows the federal inventor-first baseline — the invention belongs to the employee who conceived it — and the most an employer can earn through the employee's use of company time or materials is a shop right, which Missouri courts describe as a non-exclusive license to use the invention, never ownership of it.", "sources": [ { "id": "stanford-default-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 — the default that governs in Missouri absent a written assignment.", "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/missouri#src-stanford-default-inventor" }, { "id": "dewey-no-shop-right", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Dewey v. American Stair Glide Corp.", "citation": "Dewey v. American Stair Glide Corp., 557 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1737795/dewey-v-american-stair-glide-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1737795/dewey-v-american-stair-glide-corp/#:~:text=In%20this%20case%20the%20facts,was%20during%20his%20lunch%20hour.", "proposition": "Dewey v. American Stair Glide Corp. reversed a judgment for the employer and held that no shop right arose where the employee originated and fully developed his idea at home and worked on it at the plant only during his lunch hour — so the invention stayed the employee's, and he recovered for the employer's unjust enrichment.", "verbatimQuote": "In this case the facts simply do not show Dewey developed his idea on company time using company materials or the time of fellow employees. The evidence unmistakably shows the idea was originated and fully developed by Dewey at home, and the work performed at the plant in developing the idea was during his lunch hour.", "date": "1977-10-11", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/missouri#src-dewey-no-shop-right" }, { "id": "corrigan-shop-right-license", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & Dicus", "citation": "Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & Dicus, 824 S.W.2d 92 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1992).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2430352/corrigan-v-armstrong-teasdale-schlafly-davis-dicus/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2430352/corrigan-v-armstrong-teasdale-schlafly-davis-dicus/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%20%E2%80%9Cright%E2%80%9D%20the%20employer,for%20that%20license%20or%20privilege.", "proposition": "Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale restates the Missouri shop right as a non-exclusive license or privilege to replicate the invention without payment — a defense to infringement claims, not an ownership interest in the employee's invention.", "verbatimQuote": "Thus, the “right” the employer acquires is more accurately described as a non-exclusive license or privilege to replicate the invention or trade secret, without payment for that license or privilege.", "date": "1992-01-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/missouri#src-corrigan-shop-right-license" }, { "id": "dubilier-hired-to-invent-mo", "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 background federal exception to the inventor-owns 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/missouri#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent-mo" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Missouri?", "answerText": "Reasonableness is the only limit — and its application here is by analogy, not holding. No Missouri appellate decision found in our review squarely adjudicates a post-employment trailing-assignment clause, and there is no statutory cap because there is no invention-assignment statute at all. What Missouri does supply is a well-developed reasonableness doctrine for restraints arising out of employment, anchored in the rule that an ex-employee's knowledge, skill, and experience remain the employee's own absent a valid restrictive covenant or a breach of confidence — the framework a Missouri court would most likely apply to an aggressive holdover clause.", "sources": [ { "id": "national-rejectors-mobility", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "National Rejectors, Inc. v. Trieman", "citation": "National Rejectors, Inc. v. Trieman, 409 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1966).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1784282/national-rejectors-inc-v-trieman/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1784282/national-rejectors-inc-v-trieman/#:~:text=We%20follow%20the%20rule%20that,gained%20in%20the%20former%20employment.", "proposition": "National Rejectors, Inc. v. Trieman states Missouri's public-policy rule that, absent a valid restrictive covenant or breach of a confidential relationship, a departing employee may compete and use the knowledge, memory, skill, and experience gained in the former employment — the boundary any post-employment trailing-assignment clause must respect.", "verbatimQuote": "We follow the rule that an employee may leave his employment and establish a new enterprise in competition with the former employer, absent a valid restrictive covenant therefor, or breach of a confidential relationship, and in connection therewith utilize his knowledge, memory, skill and experience gained in the former employment.", "date": "1966-09-12", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/missouri#src-national-rejectors-mobility" }, { "id": "corrigan-license-practice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & Dicus", "citation": "Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafly, Davis & Dicus, 824 S.W.2d 92 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1992).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2430352/corrigan-v-armstrong-teasdale-schlafly-davis-dicus/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2430352/corrigan-v-armstrong-teasdale-schlafly-davis-dicus/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20the%20%E2%80%9Cright%E2%80%9D%20the%20employer,for%20that%20license%20or%20privilege.", "proposition": "Corrigan v. Armstrong, Teasdale restates that without an effective assignment the employer's position is at most a non-exclusive license to replicate the invention — so an employer's rights to post-employment inventions are only as good as the contract language that transfers them.", "verbatimQuote": "Thus, the “right” the employer acquires is more accurately described as a non-exclusive license or privilege to replicate the invention or trade secret, without payment for that license or privilege.", "date": "1992-01-07", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/missouri#src-corrigan-license-practice" } ] } ] } }