{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "nebraska", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Nebraska", "description": "Nebraska has no employee-invention-assignment statute — its only invention statutes are consumer-protection laws — 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 owns unless hired to invent; the Eighth Circuit applying Nebraska law has restated that default, the Nebraska Supreme Court left title with employee-inventors and gave the employer only an implied royalty-free license, and a post-employment holdover clause is unsettled — with the added hazard that Nebraska courts never reform an overbroad covenant, so an overbroad clause is struck entirely rather than trimmed.", "state": "Nebraska", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "Nebraska has no employee-invention-assignment statute — its only invention statutes are consumer-protection laws — 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 owns unless hired to invent, the Nebraska Supreme Court has given an employer only an implied royalty-free license in an invention developed with its materials, and a post-employment holdover clause is unsettled — with the added hazard that Nebraska courts never reform an overbroad covenant, so an overbroad clause is struck entirely rather than trimmed.", "keyLaw": "No Nebraska invention-assignment statute; Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, 970 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2020) (applying Nebraska law); Hutton v. City of Omaha, 111 Neb. 850 (1924); Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)", "statutoryCarveOut": "none", "defaultOwnership": "employee", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "unsettled", "carveOutScope": "Nebraska 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 Nebraska's judge-made restraint doctrine, under which an overbroad covenant is struck entirely rather than reformed." }, "about": [ "Nebraska invention assignment", "Nebraska no invention-assignment statute", "Nebraska employee invention ownership", "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile LLC", "Hutton v. City of Omaha", "Nebraska hired to invent", "Nebraska shop right", "Nebraska holdover trailing assignment", "Nebraska no-reformation covenant rule" ], "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 Nebraska employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. Nebraska 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 Eighth Circuit, applying Nebraska law, restates the baseline that clause must overcome: the individual owns the patent rights to what he invents, even when he invents it on the job.", "sources": [ { "id": "farmers-edge-inventor-default", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC", "citation": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, 970 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Banks v. Unisys Corp., 228 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4775779/farmers-edge-inc-v-farmobile-llc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4775779/farmers-edge-inc-v-farmobile-llc/#:~:text=an%20individual%20owns%20the%20patent,the%20course%20of%20his%20employment.", "proposition": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, an Eighth Circuit decision applying Nebraska law and quoting Banks v. Unisys Corp., restates the inventor-first default that an assignment clause must displace — the individual owns the patent rights to his invention even when it was conceived in the course of employment.", "verbatimQuote": "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": "2020-08-17", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska#src-farmers-edge-inventor-default" }, { "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/nebraska#src-stanford-baseline" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must a Nebraska employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Nebraska 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 Nebraska enforces instead is contractual: the inventor-first default yields only to an express agreement or a hired-to-invent engagement, so any disclosure or assignment duty arises from the terms of the agreement itself.", "sources": [ { "id": "farmers-edge-contract-default", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC", "citation": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, 970 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Banks v. Unisys Corp., 228 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4775779/farmers-edge-inc-v-farmobile-llc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4775779/farmers-edge-inc-v-farmobile-llc/#:~:text=an%20individual%20owns%20the%20patent,the%20course%20of%20his%20employment.", "proposition": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, applying Nebraska law, starts from the rule that the employee-inventor owns patent rights absent an express agreement — so in Nebraska any disclosure or assignment duty arises from the contract itself rather than from a notice-requiring statute.", "verbatimQuote": "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": "2020-08-17", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska#src-farmers-edge-contract-default" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Nebraska?", "answerText": "The inventor, unless hired to invent. Absent a written assignment, the baseline under federal patent law — which governs who holds title to a patentable invention in Nebraska as elsewhere — is that rights belong to the employee who conceived it, and the Eighth Circuit has applied that default as the operative rule under Nebraska law. Nebraska's own Supreme Court reached the matching result a century ago: employees who developed a patented device with city materials and labor kept title, and the employer earned only an implied royalty-free license — the shop-right outcome.", "sources": [ { "id": "stanford-inventor", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems", "citation": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/#:~:text=Since%201790%2C%20the%20patent%20law,invention%20belong%20to%20the%20inventor.", "proposition": "Stanford v. Roche confirms the long-standing premise of U.S. patent law that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.", "verbatimQuote": "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.", "date": "2011-06-06", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska#src-stanford-inventor" }, { "id": "farmers-edge-hired-to-invent", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC", "citation": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, 970 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Banks v. Unisys Corp., 228 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4775779/farmers-edge-inc-v-farmobile-llc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4775779/farmers-edge-inc-v-farmobile-llc/#:~:text=The%20second%20exception%20is%20that,may%20belong%20to%20the%20employer.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, applying Nebraska law and quoting Banks v. Unisys Corp., states the hired-to-invent exception — an employee hired to invent something or solve a particular problem may owe the resulting invention to the employer.", "verbatimQuote": "The second exception is that when an employee is “hired to invent something or solve a particular problem, the property of the invention related to this effort may belong to the employer.”", "date": "2020-08-17", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska#src-farmers-edge-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "farmers-edge-no-specific-assignment", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC", "citation": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, 970 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Teets v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 83 F.3d 403, 409 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4775779/farmers-edge-inc-v-farmobile-llc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4775779/farmers-edge-inc-v-farmobile-llc/#:~:text=FEI%20has%20not%20pointed%20to,on%20this%20occasion%20to%20invent.%E2%80%9D", "proposition": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, applying Nebraska law, refused to imply a hired-to-invent obligation where the employer showed no evidence the employees had received a specific assignment to invent — general employment is not enough.", "verbatimQuote": "FEI has not pointed to evidence in the record that Nuss, Gerlock, and Tatge “received an assignment on this occasion to invent.”", "date": "2020-08-17", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska#src-farmers-edge-no-specific-assignment" }, { "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.", "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/nebraska#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "hutton-implied-license", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Hutton v. City of Omaha", "citation": "Hutton v. City of Omaha, 111 Neb. 850, 198 N.W. 146 (1924).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8074481/hutton-v-city-of-omaha/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8074481/hutton-v-city-of-omaha/#:~:text=the%20only%20conclusion%20to%20be,an%20implied%20license%20without%20compensation", "proposition": "Hutton v. City of Omaha, the Nebraska Supreme Court's employee-invention decision, holds that where employees developed a patented device with the employer's materials and labor, the only inference is an implied license without compensation — the employer gets a royalty-free right to use the invention while title stays with the employee-inventors.", "verbatimQuote": "the only conclusion to be drawn therefrom is an implied license without compensation", "date": "1924-03-22", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska#src-hutton-implied-license" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Nebraska?", "answerText": "Unsettled. No Nebraska decision found in our review addresses a trailing clause reaching inventions first conceived after employment ends, and there is no statutory framework at all — Nebraska has no invention-assignment statute and no general employment-restraint statute, so its covenant law is entirely judge-made. The closest analogy is Nebraska's three-part reasonableness test for covenants arising from employment, and Nebraska adds a hazard most states do not: its courts have never allowed reformation of an overbroad covenant, so a holdover clause that fails the test would be struck entirely, not trimmed.", "sources": [ { "id": "aon-three-part-test", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Aon Consulting, Inc. v. Midlands Financial Benefits, Inc.", "citation": "Aon Consulting, Inc. v. Midlands Fin. Benefits, Inc., 275 Neb. 642, 748 N.W.2d 626 (2008).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139960/aon-consulting-v-midlands-financial/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2139960/aon-consulting-v-midlands-financial/#:~:text=In%20determining%20whether%20a%20covenant,and%20oppressive%20on%20the%20employee.", "proposition": "Aon Consulting, Inc. v. Midlands Financial Benefits, Inc. states Nebraska's three-part reasonableness test for covenants arising from employment — not injurious to the public, no greater than reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest, and not unduly harsh and oppressive on the employee — the framework a court would most likely borrow for an invention-holdover clause.", "verbatimQuote": "In determining whether a covenant not to compete is valid, a court considers whether the restriction is (1) reasonable in the sense that it is not injurious to the public, (2) not greater than is reasonably necessary to protect the employer in some legitimate interest, and (3) not unduly harsh and oppressive on the employee.", "date": "2008-05-09", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska#src-aon-three-part-test" }, { "id": "gaver-ordinary-competition", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Gaver v. Schneider's O.K. Tire Co.", "citation": "Gaver v. Schneider's O.K. Tire Co., 289 Neb. 491 (2014).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2751413/gaver-v-schneiders-ok-tire-co/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2751413/gaver-v-schneiders-ok-tire-co/#:~:text=An%20employer%20has%20a%20legitimate,competition%20from%20a%20former%20employee.", "proposition": "Gaver v. Schneider's O.K. Tire Co. draws Nebraska's legitimate-interest line — an employer may protect itself against a former employee's unfair competition but is not entitled to protection against ordinary competition — the prong an aggressive holdover assignment would have to survive.", "verbatimQuote": "An employer has a legitimate business interest in protection against a former employee’s competition by improper and unfair means, but is not entitled to protection against ordinary competition from a former employee.", "date": "2014-11-14", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska#src-gaver-ordinary-competition" }, { "id": "cae-vanguard-no-reformation", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "CAE Vanguard, Inc. v. Newman", "citation": "CAE Vanguard, Inc. v. Newman, 246 Neb. 334, 518 N.W.2d 652 (1994).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2196794/cae-vanguard-inc-v-newman/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2196794/cae-vanguard-inc-v-newman/#:~:text=This%20court%20has%20never%20allowed,a%20covenant%20not%20to%20compete.", "proposition": "CAE Vanguard, Inc. v. Newman holds that the Nebraska Supreme Court has never allowed reformation of a covenant not to compete — an overbroad restraint is struck entirely rather than trimmed.", "verbatimQuote": "This court has never allowed reformation of a covenant not to compete.", "date": "1994-07-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska#src-cae-vanguard-no-reformation" }, { "id": "cae-vanguard-reformation-clause", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "CAE Vanguard, Inc. v. Newman", "citation": "CAE Vanguard, Inc. v. Newman, 246 Neb. 334, 518 N.W.2d 652 (1994).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2196794/cae-vanguard-inc-v-newman/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2196794/cae-vanguard-inc-v-newman/#:~:text=The%20provision%20of%20the%20agreement,which%20it%20does%20not%20possess.", "proposition": "CAE Vanguard, Inc. v. Newman holds that a contract clause authorizing a court to reform an overbroad covenant is of no effect — private parties cannot confer reformation power on Nebraska courts by agreement.", "verbatimQuote": "The provision of the agreement which states that a court may reform the covenant is of no effect. Private parties may not confer upon the court powers which it does not possess.", "date": "1994-07-08", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska#src-cae-vanguard-reformation-clause" }, { "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 an employer takes title only through an assignment from the employee-inventor.", "verbatimQuote": "Thus, although others may acquire an interest in an invention, any such interest — as a general rule — must trace back to the inventor.", "date": "2011-06-06", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska#src-stanford-traceback-practice" }, { "id": "farmers-edge-secrecy-practice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC", "citation": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, 970 F.3d 1027 (8th Cir. 2020).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4775779/farmers-edge-inc-v-farmobile-llc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4775779/farmers-edge-inc-v-farmobile-llc/#:~:text=Without%20such%20reasonable%20efforts%20or,under%20the%20NTSA%20or%20DTSA.", "proposition": "Farmers Edge Inc. v. Farmobile, LLC, applying Nebraska law, rejected the employer's trade-secret claims under the Nebraska Trade Secrets Act and the federal DTSA because the employer made no reasonable secrecy efforts — it had shared the information with a third-party contractor without a confidentiality agreement.", "verbatimQuote": "Without such reasonable efforts or measures, there is no secret to protect, and FEI cannot maintain a claim under the NTSA or DTSA.", "date": "2020-08-17", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nebraska#src-farmers-edge-secrecy-practice" } ] } ] } }