{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nevada", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nevada.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nevada", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nevada/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nevada/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "nevada", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Nevada", "description": "Nevada's NRS 600.500 makes the employer the default owner of an employee's in-scope patentable inventions and trade secrets, with no employee carve-out and no notice requirement; a written present-assignment clause is still needed for clean federal patent title, and post-employment holdover clauses are policed under NRS 613.195.", "state": "Nevada", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-18", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "Nevada is a national outlier — NRS 600.500 makes the employer, not the employee, the default owner of any patentable invention or trade secret an employee develops in the course and scope of employment that relates to the work, with no employee carve-out and no notice requirement; a written present-assignment clause is still needed for clean federal patent title, and post-employment \"holdover\" clauses are policed under Nevada's restrictive-covenant statute, NRS 613.195.", "keyLaw": "Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 600.500, 613.195; Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)", "statutoryCarveOut": "employerOwnership", "defaultOwnership": "employerStatutory", "employeeNoticeRequired": "no", "holdoverClauseLimit": "reasonablenessOnly", "carveOutScope": "No employee carve-out. NRS 600.500 vests ownership in the employer for a patentable invention or trade secret developed in the course and scope of employment that relates directly to the work performed, absent an express written agreement; contractual overreach beyond the statute is limited only by general contract defenses and, for post-employment reach, the reasonableness limits of NRS 613.195." }, "about": [ "Nevada NRS 600.500 employer ownership", "Nevada employee invention default", "Nevada no invention-assignment carve-out", "Nevada NRS 613.195 holdover", "Nevada trailing assignment", "Stanford v. Roche present assignment", "Nevada employer-owns-by-statute" ], "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-nevada" } }, "questions": [ { "slug": "statutory-carve-out", "label": "Can the employer require assignment of every invention?", "heading": "Can a Nevada employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "Nevada is unusual: there is no §2870-style employee carve-out. To the contrary, NRS 600.500 makes the employer the default owner of an employee's in-scope patentable inventions and trade secrets, absent an express written agreement. So a Nevada employer starts from an ownership position, not a carve-out limit.", "sources": [ { "id": "nv-600-500", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500", "citation": "Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500.", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-600.html", "proposition": "NRS 600.500 makes the employer the sole owner, absent an express written agreement, of any patentable invention or trade secret the employee develops in the course and scope of employment that relates directly to the work performed — an employer-ownership default that inverts the Section 2870 model.", "verbatimQuote": "Except as otherwise provided by express written agreement, an employer is the sole owner of any patentable invention or trade secret developed by his or her employee during the course and scope of the employment that relates directly to work performed during the course and scope of the employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nevada#src-nv-600-500" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must a Nevada employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "No. NRS 600.500 vests ownership in the employer by operation of law and imposes no notice, disclosure, or burden-shifting requirement of any kind — the sharp contrast with California, which requires a written notice under Labor Code § 2872, and Washington, which requires one under RCW 49.44.140(3). Because the statute grants the employer default ownership rather than protecting an employee carve-out, there is nothing the employer must notify the employee about.", "sources": [ { "id": "nv-600-500-notice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500", "citation": "Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500.", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-600.html", "proposition": "NRS 600.500 vests ownership in the employer by operation of law, without conditioning that transfer on any notice to, or disclosure by, the employee — Nevada imposes no statutory invention-assignment notice requirement.", "verbatimQuote": "Except as otherwise provided by express written agreement, an employer is the sole owner of any patentable invention or trade secret developed by his or her employee during the course and scope of the employment that relates directly to work performed during the course and scope of the employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nevada#src-nv-600-500-notice" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Nevada?", "answerText": "The employer, by statute — the inverse of the general rule. Federal patent law's baseline is still that rights begin with the inventor, as the U.S. Supreme Court restated in Stanford v. Roche, but NRS 600.500 supplies the state-law transfer, vesting title in the employer for in-scope inventions and displacing the common-law hired-to-invent and shop-right doctrines.", "sources": [ { "id": "nv-600-500-ownership", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500", "citation": "Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500.", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-600.html", "proposition": "Under NRS 600.500 the employer is the default owner of an employee's in-scope patentable invention or trade secret, displacing the common-law rule that an invention belongs to the inventor absent an assignment.", "verbatimQuote": "Except as otherwise provided by express written agreement, an employer is the sole owner of any patentable invention or trade secret developed by his or her employee during the course and scope of the employment that relates directly to work performed during the course and scope of the employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nevada#src-nv-600-500-ownership" }, { "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/nevada#src-stanford-inventor" }, { "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 — the federal patent-law baseline for a clean chain of title, which a written present assignment secures alongside Nevada's statutory employer-ownership default.", "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/nevada#src-stanford-traceback" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Nevada?", "answerText": "Only so far as reasonable. A post-employment trailing clause restrains a former employee's mobility, so a Nevada court would most likely analyze it the way it analyzes any post-employment restraint — under the restrictive-covenant statute, NRS 613.195: a covenant is void unless it is supported by consideration, no greater than required to protect the employer, and imposes no undue hardship; an overbroad covenant must be judicially blue-penciled to a reasonable scope; and a covenant may not apply at all to an employee paid solely on an hourly-wage basis.", "sources": [ { "id": "nv-613-195", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.195", "citation": "Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.195(1).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(1) makes a noncompetition covenant void and unenforceable unless it is supported by valuable consideration, imposes no restraint greater than required to protect the employer, imposes no undue hardship on the employee, and is appropriate in relation to the consideration — the reasonableness framework Nevada courts apply to post-employment noncompetition covenants, and the framework under which a trailing-assignment clause that restrains a former employee's mobility would most likely be analyzed by analogy (no published Nevada decision squarely applies it to an invention holdover).", "verbatimQuote": "A noncompetition covenant is void and unenforceable unless the noncompetition covenant: (a) Is supported by valuable consideration; (b) Does not impose any restraint that is greater than is required for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) Does not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) Imposes restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the noncompetition covenant.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nevada#src-nv-613-195" }, { "id": "nv-613-195-hourly", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.195", "citation": "Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.195(3).", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-613.html", "proposition": "NRS 613.195(3) bars a noncompetition covenant from applying to an employee paid solely on an hourly-wage basis — so if a trailing-assignment clause is treated, by analogy, as a de facto non-compete against an hourly worker, it risks being void entirely.", "verbatimQuote": "A noncompetition covenant may not apply to an employee who is paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of any tips or gratuities.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nevada#src-nv-613-195-hourly" }, { "id": "nv-600-500-practice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500", "citation": "Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500.", "url": "https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-600.html", "proposition": "NRS 600.500 makes the employer the sole owner, absent an express written agreement, of any patentable invention or trade secret the employee develops in the course and scope of employment that relates directly to the work performed — an employer-ownership default that inverts the Section 2870 model.", "verbatimQuote": "Except as otherwise provided by express written agreement, an employer is the sole owner of any patentable invention or trade secret developed by his or her employee during the course and scope of the employment that relates directly to work performed during the course and scope of the employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/nevada#src-nv-600-500-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 — the federal patent-law baseline for a clean chain of title, which a written present assignment secures alongside Nevada's statutory employer-ownership default.", "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/nevada#src-stanford-traceback-practice" } ] } ] } }