{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "montana", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Montana", "description": "Montana has no California-style own-time carve-out and no notice requirement, but it is not a blank slate either — an 1895 Field Civil Code provision, MCA 39-2-102, declares that everything an employee acquires by virtue of employment belongs to the employer, and no Montana court has decided whether that text reaches inventions. The Montana Supreme Court has treated the employment relationship as primarily contractual without automatic employer ownership, so who owns an invention absent a written assignment is genuinely unclear, and a post-employment holdover clause would most likely be tested under Montana's restraint-of-trade reasonableness framework.", "state": "Montana", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "Montana has no employee-invention-assignment statute in the California mold — no own-time carve-out and no notice requirement — but MCA 39-2-102, an 1895 Field Civil Code provision, declares that everything an employee acquires by virtue of employment belongs to the employer, and no Montana court has decided whether that text reaches inventions; in Associated Mgmt. Servs. v. Ruff the Montana Supreme Court treated the employment relationship as primarily contractual without automatic employer ownership, so who owns an invention absent a written assignment is genuinely unclear between the statute's employer-favoring text and the federal inventor-first baseline, and a post-employment holdover clause would most likely be tested under the restraint-of-trade framework of MCA 28-2-703.", "keyLaw": "Mont. Code Ann. §§ 39-2-102, 28-2-703; Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff, 2018 MT 182", "statutoryCarveOut": "unsettled", "defaultOwnership": "unclear", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "reasonablenessOnly", "carveOutScope": "Montana has no statutory own-time carve-out. The only statutory text on point is MCA 39-2-102's employer-acquisition rule, whose application to inventions is unresolved — so the reach of an assignment clause is bounded by ordinary contract law, an unresolved statutory default, the federal patent overlay, and the restraint-of-trade limits of MCA 28-2-703, not by any employee-protective ceiling." }, "about": [ "Montana invention assignment", "MCA 39-2-102 what belongs to employer", "Associated Management Services v. Ruff", "Montana employee invention ownership", "MCA 28-2-703 restraint of trade", "Montana holdover trailing assignment", "Montana hired to invent 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 Montana employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no employee-protective ceiling — Montana has no §2870-style statute voiding the assignment of a true own-time, own-resource invention — but Montana is not a pure no-statute state either. MCA § 39-2-102, an 1895 Field Civil Code provision, declares that everything an employee acquires by virtue of employment belongs to the employer, and whether that partial employer-ownership rule reaches inventions is an open question no Montana court has decided.", "sources": [ { "id": "mt-39-2-102-employer-acquisition", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-102", "citation": "Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-102.", "url": "https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0390/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0020/0390-0020-0010-0020.html", "proposition": "MCA § 39-2-102, enacted as part of Montana's 1895 Field Civil Code, makes everything an employee acquires by virtue of employment the employer's property except compensation due — a partial employer-ownership statute that plausibly reaches inventions but never mentions them and has never been applied to one.", "verbatimQuote": "Everything that an employee acquires by virtue of employment, except the compensation, if any, that is due from the employee's employer, belongs to the employer, whether acquired lawfully or unlawfully or during or after the expiration of the term of the employee's employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana#src-mt-39-2-102-employer-acquisition" }, { "id": "ruff-not-heretofore-construed", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff", "citation": "Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff, 2018 MT 182, 392 Mont. 139, 424 P.3d 571.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6657038/associated-mgmt-servs-inc-v-ruff/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6657038/associated-mgmt-servs-inc-v-ruff/#:~:text=Though%20we%20have%20not%20heretofore,contractual%20relationship.%20Section%2039%2D2%2D101%2C%20MCA.", "proposition": "Associated Mgmt. Servs. v. Ruff shows the Montana Supreme Court had not previously construed how § 39-2-102 interacts with the employee-duty statutes and treats the employment relationship as primarily contractual — so no Montana holding makes the statute an automatic invention-assignment rule.", "verbatimQuote": "Though we have not heretofore construed the interplay between §§ 39-2-102, -403, and -409, MCA, the employment relationship is primarily a contractual relationship. Section 39-2-101, MCA.", "date": "2018-07-24", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana#src-ruff-not-heretofore-construed" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must a Montana employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Montana 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). The one Montana statute that touches employee acquisitions, MCA § 39-2-102, vests ownership language in the employer without conditioning anything on notice to, or disclosure by, anyone.", "sources": [ { "id": "mt-39-2-102-no-notice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-102", "citation": "Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-102.", "url": "https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0390/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0020/0390-0020-0010-0020.html", "proposition": "MCA § 39-2-102 operates unconditionally by its terms, without requiring any notice to or disclosure by the employee — and Montana has no invention-assignment statute, so no statutory notice regime of any kind exists.", "verbatimQuote": "Everything that an employee acquires by virtue of employment, except the compensation, if any, that is due from the employee's employer, belongs to the employer, whether acquired lawfully or unlawfully or during or after the expiration of the term of the employee's employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana#src-mt-39-2-102-no-notice" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Montana?", "answerText": "Genuinely unclear — Montana is caught between two defaults that point in opposite directions. The federal baseline is that rights in an invention belong to the inventor unless assigned, subject to the narrow hired-to-invent exception and the employer's shop right. But MCA § 39-2-102's text — everything acquired by virtue of employment belongs to the employer — points the other way, and no Montana court has resolved the tension for an invention.", "sources": [ { "id": "stanford-inventor-default", "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 federal baseline that competes with MCA § 39-2-102's employer-favoring text in Montana.", "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/montana#src-stanford-inventor-default" }, { "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 a Montana court would most likely consult, since our review found no Montana decision adopting it.", "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/montana#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "dubilier-shop-right", "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=where%20a%20servant%2C%20during%20his,right%20to%20practice%20the%20invention.", "proposition": "United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. states the shop-right rule — an employee who conceives and perfects an invention on the employer's time with the employer's materials owes the employer a non-exclusive right to practice it, not ownership; our review found no Montana decision applying the doctrine, so it operates here only as the federal baseline a Montana court would most likely consult.", "verbatimQuote": "where a servant, during his hours of employment, working with his master's materials and appliances, conceives and perfects an invention for which he obtains a patent, he must accord his master a non-exclusive right to practice the invention.", "date": "1933-05-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana#src-dubilier-shop-right" }, { "id": "mt-39-2-102-ownership-text", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-102", "citation": "Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-102.", "url": "https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0390/chapter_0020/part_0010/section_0020/0390-0020-0010-0020.html", "proposition": "MCA § 39-2-102's text vests everything an employee acquires by virtue of employment in the employer — an employer-favoring state-law default that, if applied to inventions, would displace the federal inventor-first baseline; no Montana court has decided whether it applies.", "verbatimQuote": "Everything that an employee acquires by virtue of employment, except the compensation, if any, that is due from the employee's employer, belongs to the employer, whether acquired lawfully or unlawfully or during or after the expiration of the term of the employee's employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana#src-mt-39-2-102-ownership-text" }, { "id": "ruff-recites-employer-acquisition", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff", "citation": "Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff, 2018 MT 182, 392 Mont. 139, 424 P.3d 571.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6657038/associated-mgmt-servs-inc-v-ruff/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6657038/associated-mgmt-servs-inc-v-ruff/#:~:text=Moreover%2C%20except%20for%20compensation%20due%2C,acquires%20by%20virtue%20of%20employment", "proposition": "Associated Mgmt. Servs. v. Ruff recites § 39-2-102's employer-acquisition rule as live Montana law in an employee-intellectual-property dispute, showing the statute cannot be dismissed when predicting Montana's default ownership rule.", "verbatimQuote": "Moreover, except for compensation due, \"[e]verything that an employee acquires by virtue of employment", "date": "2018-07-24", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana#src-ruff-recites-employer-acquisition" }, { "id": "ruff-contract-primacy", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff", "citation": "Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff, 2018 MT 182, 392 Mont. 139, 424 P.3d 571.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6657038/associated-mgmt-servs-inc-v-ruff/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6657038/associated-mgmt-servs-inc-v-ruff/#:~:text=Though%20we%20have%20not%20heretofore,contractual%20relationship.%20Section%2039%2D2%2D101%2C%20MCA.", "proposition": "Associated Mgmt. Servs. v. Ruff resolves an employee-created-IP ownership dispute on contract primacy — the employment relationship is primarily contractual — rather than treating § 39-2-102 as automatic employer ownership, leaving the statute's reach over inventions undecided.", "verbatimQuote": "Though we have not heretofore construed the interplay between §§ 39-2-102, -403, and -409, MCA, the employment relationship is primarily a contractual relationship. Section 39-2-101, MCA.", "date": "2018-07-24", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana#src-ruff-contract-primacy" }, { "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 whatever state-law default MCA § 39-2-102 supplies, an employer's federal patent title still runs through a transfer 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/montana#src-stanford-traceback" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Montana?", "answerText": "Only so far as reasonable, most likely — by analogy, not by holding. Our review found no Montana decision addressing a post-employment invention-assignment tail. What Montana does have is a statutory restraint-of-trade framework: MCA § 28-2-703 voids a contract restraining anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business except in two narrow statutory situations, and the Montana Supreme Court enforces employment covenants only when reasonable and supported by a legitimate business interest. A court asked to enforce an aggressive holdover clause would most likely test it under that framework.", "sources": [ { "id": "mt-28-2-703-restraint-void", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703", "citation": "Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703.", "url": "https://mca.legmt.gov/bills/mca/title_0280/chapter_0020/part_0070/section_0030/0280-0020-0070-0030.html", "proposition": "MCA § 28-2-703 voids, to that extent, any contract restraining anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business except in the two narrow statutory situations of §§ 28-2-704 and 28-2-705 — the restraint-of-trade framework under which a Montana court would most likely test a post-employment trailing-assignment clause.", "verbatimQuote": "Any contract by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, otherwise than is provided for by 28-2-704 or 28-2-705, is to that extent void.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana#src-mt-28-2-703-restraint-void" }, { "id": "access-organics-three-part-test", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Access Organics, Inc. v. Hernandez", "citation": "Access Organics, Inc. v. Hernandez, 2008 MT 4, 341 Mont. 73, 175 P.3d 899.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/888657/access-organics-inc-v-hernandez/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/888657/access-organics-inc-v-hernandez/#:~:text=(1)%20%5BI%5Dt%20must%20be%20partial,the%20interests%20of%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Access Organics, Inc. v. Hernandez restates Montana's three-part reasonableness test for covenants restraining employment — restricted in time or place, supported by good consideration, and no broader than fair protection of the covenantee without interfering with the public interest — the test a court would most likely adapt to an invention holdover clause.", "verbatimQuote": "(1) [I]t must be partial or restricted in its operation in respect either to time or place; (2) it must be on some good consideration; and (3) it must be reasonable, that is, it should afford only a fair protection to the interests of the party in whose favor it is made, and must not be so large in its operation as to interfere with the interests of the public.", "date": "2008-01-03", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana#src-access-organics-three-part-test" }, { "id": "access-organics-strict-construction", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Access Organics, Inc. v. Hernandez", "citation": "Access Organics, Inc. v. Hernandez, 2008 MT 4, 341 Mont. 73, 175 P.3d 899.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/888657/access-organics-inc-v-hernandez/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/888657/access-organics-inc-v-hernandez/#:~:text=Since%20Montana%E2%80%99s%20public%20policy%20strongly,we%20construe%20non%2Dcompete%20agreements%20strictly", "proposition": "Access Organics, Inc. v. Hernandez holds that because Montana public policy strongly disfavors agreements in restraint of trade, covenants are construed strictly — a canon that cuts against saving an overbroad trailing-assignment clause by narrowing it.", "verbatimQuote": "Since Montana’s public policy strongly disfavors agreements in restraint of trade, as discussed above, we construe non-compete agreements strictly", "date": "2008-01-03", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana#src-access-organics-strict-construction" }, { "id": "wrigg-legitimate-interest", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Wrigg v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C.", "citation": "Wrigg v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C., 2011 MT 290, 362 Mont. 496, 265 P.3d 646.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/889623/wrigg-v-junkermier-clark-campanella-stevens-pc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/889623/wrigg-v-junkermier-clark-campanella-stevens-pc/#:~:text=We%20agree%20that%20an%20employer,to%20end%20the%20employment%20relationship.", "proposition": "Wrigg v. Junkermier holds that an employer normally lacks a legitimate business interest in a covenant when it chooses to end the employment relationship — a threshold requirement that would weigh heavily against enforcing a trailing-assignment clause after an employer-initiated termination.", "verbatimQuote": "We agree that an employer normally lacks a legitimate business interest in a covenant when it chooses to end the employment relationship.", "date": "2011-11-22", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana#src-wrigg-legitimate-interest" }, { "id": "ruff-contract-primacy-practice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff", "citation": "Associated Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Ruff, 2018 MT 182, 392 Mont. 139, 424 P.3d 571.", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6657038/associated-mgmt-servs-inc-v-ruff/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6657038/associated-mgmt-servs-inc-v-ruff/#:~:text=Though%20we%20have%20not%20heretofore,contractual%20relationship.%20Section%2039%2D2%2D101%2C%20MCA.", "proposition": "Associated Mgmt. Servs. v. Ruff resolves an employee-created-IP ownership dispute on contract primacy — the employment relationship is primarily contractual — rather than treating § 39-2-102 as automatic employer ownership, leaving the statute's reach over inventions undecided.", "verbatimQuote": "Though we have not heretofore construed the interplay between §§ 39-2-102, -403, and -409, MCA, the employment relationship is primarily a contractual relationship. Section 39-2-101, MCA.", "date": "2018-07-24", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/montana#src-ruff-contract-primacy-practice" }, { "id": "stanford-traceback-practice", "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 whatever state-law default MCA § 39-2-102 supplies, an employer's federal patent title still runs through a transfer 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/montana#src-stanford-traceback-practice" } ] } ] } }