{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/new-hampshire", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/new-hampshire.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/new-hampshire", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/new-hampshire/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/new-hampshire/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "new-hampshire", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in New Hampshire", "description": "New Hampshire has no employee-invention-assignment statute, 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. RSA 275:70 requires pre-hire disclosure of noncompete agreements while expressly preserving intellectual-property-assignment provisions. Absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent under Vigitron, Inc. v. Ferguson, and a post-employment holdover clause would most likely be judged under New Hampshire's general three-prong reasonableness test for restraints on employment.", "state": "New Hampshire", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "New Hampshire has no employee-invention-assignment statute, 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; RSA 275:70 requires pre-hire disclosure of noncompete agreements but expressly preserves intellectual-property-assignment provisions. Absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent under Vigitron, Inc. v. Ferguson, and with no on-point holdover decision found in our review, a trailing-assignment clause would most likely be judged under New Hampshire's general three-prong reasonableness test for restraints on employment.", "keyLaw": "No New Hampshire invention-assignment statute; Vigitron, Inc. v. Ferguson, 120 N.H. 626, 419 A.2d 1115 (1980); N.H. RSA 275:70", "statutoryCarveOut": "none", "defaultOwnership": "employee", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "unsettled", "carveOutScope": "New Hampshire 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 recognized in Vigitron, Inc. v. Ferguson and the employer's shop right), and the federal patent and copyright overlay." }, "about": [ "New Hampshire invention assignment", "New Hampshire no invention-assignment statute", "New Hampshire employee invention ownership", "Vigitron, Inc. v. Ferguson", "New Hampshire hired to invent", "New Hampshire shop right", "RSA 275:70 intellectual property assignment", "New Hampshire 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 New Hampshire employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. New Hampshire has no employee-invention-assignment statute — nothing like California Labor Code § 2870 that voids the 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 closest statute, RSA 275:70, regulates noncompete disclosure and by its own text leaves intellectual-property-assignment provisions untouched, and the baseline all of this operates against is that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.", "sources": [ { "id": "rsa-275-70-preserves-ip-assignment", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 275:70 (Noncompete Agreements)", "citation": "N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 275:70.", "url": "https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/xxiii/275/275-70.htm", "proposition": "RSA 275:70 regulates only the pre-hire disclosure of noncompete agreements and expressly provides that intellectual-property-assignment provisions remain in full force and effect — so New Hampshire has no statute limiting what an invention-assignment clause may reach.", "verbatimQuote": "all other provisions of any employment, confidentiality, nondisclosure, trade secret, intellectual property assignment, or any other type of employment agreement or provision shall remain in full force and effect", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/new-hampshire#src-rsa-275-70-preserves-ip-assignment" }, { "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/new-hampshire#src-stanford-baseline" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must a New Hampshire employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. Because New Hampshire 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 nearby notice statute points the other way: RSA 275:70 requires an employer to disclose a noncompete agreement before the employee accepts the offer, and by its own text it leaves intellectual-property-assignment provisions in full force and effect.", "sources": [ { "id": "rsa-275-70-notice-scope", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 275:70 (Noncompete Agreements)", "citation": "N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 275:70.", "url": "https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/xxiii/275/275-70.htm", "proposition": "RSA 275:70 requires pre-hire disclosure of noncompete agreements only, and expressly provides that intellectual-property-assignment provisions remain in full force and effect — so its notice duty does not attach to invention-assignment clauses.", "verbatimQuote": "all other provisions of any employment, confidentiality, nondisclosure, trade secret, intellectual property assignment, or any other type of employment agreement or provision shall remain in full force and effect", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/new-hampshire#src-rsa-275-70-notice-scope" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in New Hampshire?", "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 New Hampshire as elsewhere — is that rights belong to the employee who conceived it. New Hampshire's own leading case, Vigitron, Inc. v. Ferguson, adopts the hired-to-invent exception, under which the product of an employee engaged to invent or to develop a particular product belongs to the employer even without a written contract to assign.", "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/new-hampshire#src-stanford-inventor" }, { "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/new-hampshire#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "vigitron-hired-to-invent", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Vigitron, Inc. v. Ferguson", "citation": "Vigitron, Inc. v. Ferguson, 120 N.H. 626, 629-30, 419 A.2d 1115 (1980) (citing United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178 (1933)).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2338988/vigitron-inc-v-ferguson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2338988/vigitron-inc-v-ferguson/#:~:text=accomplish%20a%20prescribed%20result%2C%20or,a%20written%20contract%20to%20assign.", "proposition": "Vigitron, Inc. v. Ferguson adopts the hired-to-invent rule for New Hampshire — the product of an employee hired to invent, accomplish a prescribed result, or aid in the development of products belongs to the employer even in the absence of a written contract to assign.", "verbatimQuote": "accomplish a prescribed result, or aid in the development of products belongs to the employer in the absence of a written contract to assign.", "date": "1980-09-17", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/new-hampshire#src-vigitron-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "vigitron-shop-right", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Vigitron, Inc. v. Ferguson", "citation": "Vigitron, Inc. v. Ferguson, 120 N.H. 626, 631, 419 A.2d 1115 (1980).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2338988/vigitron-inc-v-ferguson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2338988/vigitron-inc-v-ferguson/#:~:text=A%20precondition%20for%20the%20application,developing%20the%20product%20in%20question.", "proposition": "Vigitron, Inc. v. Ferguson holds that the shop-right rule applies only where the employee was not hired for the purpose of developing the product in question — so hired-to-invent facts give the employer ownership, not a mere license.", "verbatimQuote": "A precondition for the application of the “shop right” rule is that the employee not be hired for the purpose of developing the product in question.", "date": "1980-09-17", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/new-hampshire#src-vigitron-shop-right" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in New Hampshire?", "answerText": "The question is unsettled — reasonableness is the likely framework, by analogy rather than holding. New Hampshire has no invention-assignment statute, so nothing caps the duration or reach of a post-employment trailing clause, and no New Hampshire decision found in our review has squarely decided whether such a clause is enforceable. What New Hampshire does have is a canonical, well-developed reasonableness test for restraints arising out of employment, and a court asked to enforce an aggressive holdover clause that functions as a restraint would most likely measure it against that three-prong standard.", "sources": [ { "id": "concord-three-prong", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Concord Orthopaedics Professional Ass'n v. Forbes", "citation": "Concord Orthopaedics Prof'l Ass'n v. Forbes, 142 N.H. 440, 442-43, 702 A.2d 1273 (1997) (quoting Moore v. Dover Veterinary Hosp., Inc., 116 N.H. 680, 684, 367 A.2d 1044 (1976) (per curiam)).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8091834/concord-orthopaedics-professional-assn-v-forbes/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8091834/concord-orthopaedics-professional-assn-v-forbes/#:~:text=A%20restraint%20on%20employment%20is,not%20injurious%20to%20the%20public", "proposition": "Concord Orthopaedics, quoting Moore v. Dover Veterinary Hospital, states New Hampshire's three-prong reasonableness test for restraints on employment — no greater than necessary for the employer's legitimate interest, no undue hardship on the employee, and no injury to the public interest — the standard a court would most likely apply by analogy to a trailing invention-assignment clause.", "verbatimQuote": "A restraint on employment is reasonable only if it is no greater than necessary for the protection of the employer’s legitimate interest, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public", "date": "1997-12-04", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/new-hampshire#src-concord-three-prong" }, { "id": "concord-one-prong-fails", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Concord Orthopaedics Professional Ass'n v. Forbes", "citation": "Concord Orthopaedics Prof'l Ass'n v. Forbes, 142 N.H. 440, 443, 702 A.2d 1273 (1997) (citing Technical Aid Corp. v. Allen, 134 N.H. 1, 8, 591 A.2d 262 (1991)).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8091834/concord-orthopaedics-professional-assn-v-forbes/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8091834/concord-orthopaedics-professional-assn-v-forbes/#:~:text=If%20the%20covenant%20fails%20one,prong%2C%20the%20covenant%20is%20unenforceable.", "proposition": "Concord Orthopaedics holds that New Hampshire's reasonableness test is conjunctive — a covenant that fails any one prong is unenforceable.", "verbatimQuote": "If the covenant fails one prong, the covenant is unenforceable.", "date": "1997-12-04", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/new-hampshire#src-concord-one-prong-fails" }, { "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/new-hampshire#src-stanford-traceback-practice" }, { "id": "rsa-275-70-disclosure-practice", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 275:70 (Noncompete Agreements)", "citation": "N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 275:70.", "url": "https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/xxiii/275/275-70.htm", "proposition": "RSA 275:70 conditions noncompete agreements on pre-hire disclosure while expressly preserving intellectual-property-assignment provisions — so a trailing clause that functions as a de facto restraint invites a recharacterization argument that pre-hire disclosure was required.", "verbatimQuote": "all other provisions of any employment, confidentiality, nondisclosure, trade secret, intellectual property assignment, or any other type of employment agreement or provision shall remain in full force and effect", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/new-hampshire#src-rsa-275-70-disclosure-practice" } ] } ] } }