# Employee Invention Assignment in Nevada[^about] 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. ## Can a Nevada employer require assignment of every invention? {#statutory-carve-out} **Short answer.** 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 [^nv-600-500]. The statute vests ownership in the employer by operation of law. However the contract is written, the baseline for a patentable invention or trade secret an employee develops in the course and scope of the work is that the employer already owns it [^nv-600-500]. "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."[^nv-600-500] Because the default runs in the employer's favor, contractual expansion to reach off-scope inventions — an employee's own-time, unrelated work — is a matter of ordinary contract, not a statutory prohibition. Unlike California, where Labor Code §2870 voids an assignment clause that overreaches an own-time invention, Nevada has no IP-specific labor-code ceiling: an overbroad clause is limited only by general contract defenses and, for post-employment reach, by the restrictive-covenant statute discussed below (see Q4). ## Must a Nevada employer notify the employee? {#employee-notice} **Short answer.** 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 [^nv-600-500-notice]. The transfer is unconditional on its face: the employer is the owner of an in-scope patentable invention or trade secret, and the statute never ties that ownership to any warning given to the employee [^nv-600-500-notice]. "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."[^nv-600-500-notice] As a matter of practice, a sophisticated confidential-information-and-invention-assignment agreement will still collect a prior-inventions schedule to fix a clean chain of title, but that is drafting hygiene, not a Nevada legal requirement. ## Who owns an invention by default in Nevada? {#default-ownership} **Short answer.** 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 [^nv-600-500-ownership][^stanford-inventor][^stanford-traceback]. Where most states leave the inventor holding title until a written assignment moves it, Nevada reverses the starting point. For a patentable invention or trade secret developed in the course and scope of the work, the employer is the statutory owner from the outset [^nv-600-500-ownership]. "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."[^nv-600-500-ownership] That state-law default does not, however, make a written assignment optional. Federal patent title still traces back to the inventor, so a clean, USPTO-recognized chain of title runs through the employee-inventor. *Stanford v. Roche* anchors that premise [^stanford-inventor]. "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor."[^stanford-inventor] Because ownership starts with the inventor, any employer interest must trace back to that inventor-grantor [^stanford-traceback]. "Thus, although others may acquire an interest in an invention, any such interest — as a general rule — must trace back to the inventor."[^stanford-traceback] The practical upshot is that a Nevada employer should not rely on NRS 600.500 alone. Federal patent law vests initial title in the human inventor, and it recognizes a transfer of legal title through a written instrument rather than a state ownership statute — so a written present-tense assignment (*does hereby assign* — the *Stanford* mechanics that transfer legal title automatically on conception) remains strongly advisable to secure a clean, recordable chain of title and avoid the defects that surface in patent litigation or M&A due diligence. The statute also reaches only patentable inventions and trade secrets, not copyrightable work or unpatentable know-how. ## Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Nevada? {#holdover-clause-limit} **Short answer.** 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 [^nv-613-195][^nv-613-195-hourly]. Nevada's noncompetition statute states the reasonableness framework directly, voiding any covenant that lacks consideration, sweeps broader than the employer's protectable interest, imposes undue hardship, or is disproportionate to the consideration behind it [^nv-613-195]. "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."[^nv-613-195] The statute is harsher still for the lowest-paid workers: a noncompetition covenant simply cannot reach an employee paid solely on an hourly wage [^nv-613-195-hourly]. "A noncompetition covenant may not apply to an employee who is paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of any tips or gratuities."[^nv-613-195-hourly] Two hedges are warranted. First, no published Nevada decision squarely applies NRS 613.195 to an invention *holdover* clause, so the analogy — that a trailing-assignment tail functions as a de facto restraint on mobility and is policed accordingly — is a reasoned prediction rather than settled law. Second, treat an aggressive trailing tail as high-risk: overbroad, it must be blue-penciled down; and against an hourly-wage worker it risks being void entirely. > [!NOTE] > **Practice note.** > > Do not assume NRS 600.500's employer-ownership default does all the work. The statute reaches only patentable inventions and trade secrets developed in the course and scope of employment — not copyright, unpatentable know-how, or off-scope inventions — so a clean federal patent chain of title still needs a present-tense *does hereby assign* clause that traces title from the inventor [^nv-600-500][^stanford-traceback]. And a post-employment holdover tail would most likely be analyzed — and blue-penciled — as a restrictive covenant under NRS 613.195, which cannot reach hourly-wage workers at all, so keep any trailing assignment narrow and do not extend it to employees paid solely on an hourly basis [^nv-613-195][^nv-613-195-hourly]. [^about]: By Steven Obiajulu, J.D. Published by [openagreements.org](https://openagreements.org). Last reviewed 2026-06-30. License: CC BY 4.0. Steven Obiajulu, J.D. is admitted in New York, not Nevada. This article synthesizes Nevada primary law and is not legal advice from a Nevada-admitted attorney. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. [^nv-600-500]: **Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500** — "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." *Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500.* [^nv-600-500-notice]: **Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500** — "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." *Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500.* [^nv-600-500-ownership]: **Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500** — "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." *Nev. Rev. Stat. § 600.500.* [^stanford-inventor]: **Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems** — "Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor." *Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).* [^stanford-traceback]: **Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems** — "Thus, although others may acquire an interest in an invention, any such interest — as a general rule — must trace back to the inventor." *Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).* [^nv-613-195]: **Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.195** — "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." *Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.195(1).* [^nv-613-195-hourly]: **Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.195** — "A noncompetition covenant may not apply to an employee who is paid solely on an hourly wage basis, exclusive of any tips or gratuities." *Nev. Rev. Stat. § 613.195(3).*