{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "invention-assignment",
    "state": "north-carolina",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in North Carolina",
      "description": "North Carolina's invention-assignment statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 66-57.1 and 66-57.2) voids any clause forcing an employee to assign an invention developed entirely on their own time, without the employer's resources, that neither relates to the employer's business or R&D nor results from the employee's work; unlike California it requires no employee notice; and § 66-57.2 bars an employer from rescinding vested invention rights in a compensation dispute absent fraud. Absent a written assignment the inventor owns by default, and post-employment holdover clauses are judged by ordinary restrictive-covenant reasonableness.",
      "state": "North Carolina",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-06-30",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "bottomLine": "North Carolina's invention-assignment statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 66-57.1 and 66-57.2) voids any clause forcing an employee to assign an invention developed entirely on their own time, without the employer's resources, that neither relates to the employer's business or R&D nor results from the employee's work; it requires no notice; and it bars an employer from rescinding vested invention rights in a compensation dispute unless the written agreement provides otherwise or the employee proves the employer obtained title by fraud.",
        "keyLaw": "N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 66-57.1, 66-57.2; Speck v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation, Inc., 311 N.C. 679 (1984); Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC, 368 N.C. 857 (2016)",
        "statutoryCarveOut": "statute",
        "defaultOwnership": "employee",
        "employeeNoticeRequired": "no",
        "holdoverClauseLimit": "reasonablenessOnly",
        "carveOutScope": "An invention the employee developed entirely on their own time, without the employer's equipment, supplies, facility, or trade-secret information, that neither relates to the employer's business or actual/demonstrably anticipated R&D nor results from the employee's work — with the employee bearing the burden of proof."
      },
      "about": [
        "N.C. Gen. Stat. 66-57.1 invention assignment",
        "North Carolina employee invention ownership",
        "North Carolina hired to invent",
        "Speck v. NC Dairy Foundation",
        "Morris v. Scenera Research",
        "North Carolina invention rescission bar",
        "North Carolina own-time invention carve-out"
      ],
      "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 North Carolina employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "answerText": "No. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1 carves out a category of inventions an assignment clause simply cannot reach: anything the employee developed entirely on their own time, without the employer's equipment, supplies, facility, or trade-secret information, that neither relates to the employer's business or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development nor results from the employee's work. To the extent a provision purports to apply to that type of invention, it is against the public policy of the State and unenforceable — though the employee bears the burden of proving that an invention qualifies.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "nc-57-1",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1.",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_66/GS_66-57.1.html",
            "proposition": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1 makes an assignment clause inapplicable to an invention the employee developed entirely on their own time without the employer's equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information, unless the invention relates to the employer's business or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or results from work performed by the employee for the employer.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that the employee shall assign or offer to assign any of his rights in an invention to his employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facility or trade secret information except for those inventions that (i) relate to the employer's business or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (ii) result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-nc-57-1"
          },
          {
            "id": "nc-57-1-void",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1.",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_66/GS_66-57.1.html",
            "proposition": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1 declares that, to the extent a provision purports to apply to a carved-out own-time invention, it is against the public policy of the State and is unenforceable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to apply to the type of invention described, it is against the public policy of this State and is unenforceable.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-nc-57-1-void"
          },
          {
            "id": "nc-57-1-burden",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1.",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_66/GS_66-57.1.html",
            "proposition": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1 places the burden of proof on the employee to establish that an invention qualifies for the own-time carve-out.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The employee shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that his invention qualifies under this section.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-nc-57-1-burden"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "employee-notice",
        "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?",
        "heading": "Must a North Carolina employer notify the employee?",
        "answerText": "No. This is the key contrast with California, which requires a written notice under Labor Code § 2872, and Washington, which requires one under RCW 49.44.140(3). North Carolina's §§ 66-57.1 and 66-57.2 contain no notice, disclosure-to-the-employee, or acknowledgment requirement of any kind. Section 66-57.2 regulates the employer's conduct — barring the carved-out provision as a condition of employment and permitting a mandatory invention-reporting duty — but it never conditions a compliant clause's validity on giving the employee notice of the carve-out.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "nc-57-2-condition",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.2",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.2(a).",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_66/GS_66-57.2.html",
            "proposition": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.2(a) bars an employer from requiring a provision made unenforceable under § 66-57.1 as a condition of employment or continued employment, but imposes no requirement that the employer give the employee notice of the carve-out.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer may not require a provision of an employment agreement made unenforceable under G.S. 66-57.1 as a condition of employment or continued employment. An employer, in an employment agreement, may require that the employee report all inventions developed by the employee, solely or jointly, during the term of his employment to the employer, including those asserted by the employee as nonassignable, for the purpose of determining employee or employer rights.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-nc-57-2-condition"
          },
          {
            "id": "nc-57-1-notice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1.",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_66/GS_66-57.1.html",
            "proposition": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1 defines the own-time carve-out by the scope of the invention alone and conditions nothing on notice to the employee — the statute imposes no notice, disclosure, or acknowledgment requirement.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that the employee shall assign or offer to assign any of his rights in an invention to his employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facility or trade secret information except for those inventions that (i) relate to the employer's business or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (ii) result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-nc-57-1-notice"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "default-ownership",
        "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?",
        "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in North Carolina?",
        "answerText": "The inventor. Absent a written assignment, the baseline rule under federal patent law — which governs who holds title to a patentable invention in North Carolina as elsewhere — is that rights belong to the employee who conceived it. The U.S. Supreme Court restated that premise in Stanford v. Roche, and although others may acquire an interest, that interest must trace back to the inventor. North Carolina overlays the common-law hired-to-invent doctrine, confirmed in Speck v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation, under which an employee engaged to invent must surrender the resulting invention; and once ownership has vested in the employer, § 66-57.2 protects it from being unwound in a later compensation dispute.",
        "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/north-carolina#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 — 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/north-carolina#src-stanford-traceback"
          },
          {
            "id": "speck-hired",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Speck v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation, Inc.",
            "citation": "Speck v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation, Inc., 311 N.C. 679 (1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350180/speck-v-north-carolina-dairy-foundation-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350180/speck-v-north-carolina-dairy-foundation-inc/#:~:text=The%20fruit%20of%20the%20labor,a%20written%20contract%20to%20assign.",
            "proposition": "Speck v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation holds that the fruit of the labor of one hired to invent belongs to the employer absent a written contract to assign — North Carolina's hired-to-invent doctrine.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The fruit of the labor of one who is hired to invent, accomplish a prescribed result, or aid in the development of products belongs to the employer absent a written contract to assign.",
            "date": "1984-07-06",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-speck-hired"
          },
          {
            "id": "speck-belongs",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Speck v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation, Inc.",
            "citation": "Speck v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation, Inc., 311 N.C. 679 (1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350180/speck-v-north-carolina-dairy-foundation-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1350180/speck-v-north-carolina-dairy-foundation-inc/#:~:text=If%20the%20employee%20fails%20to,whatever%20inventions%20may%20be%20developed.",
            "proposition": "Speck v. North Carolina Dairy Foundation holds that when a hired-to-invent employee accomplishes the prescribed result, the invention belongs to the employer even where the employment terms contain no express ownership provision.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If the employee fails to reach his goal the loss falls upon the employer, but if he succeeds in accomplishing the prescribed result then the invention belongs to the employer even though the terms of employment contain no express provision dealing with the ownership of whatever inventions may be developed.",
            "date": "1984-07-06",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-speck-belongs"
          },
          {
            "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": "Dubilier states the hired-to-invent doctrine: an employee engaged 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": "1933-04-10",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent"
          },
          {
            "id": "nc-57-2-rescission",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.2",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.2(b).",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_66/GS_66-57.2.html",
            "proposition": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.2(b), as amended in 2016, provides that an employer's ownership of an employee invention that has vested by contract or operation of law is not subject to revocation or rescission in a dispute over compensation or benefits — subject to any contrary provision in the employee's written employment agreement, and inapplicable where the employee proves the employer acquired ownership fraudulently.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer's ownership of an employee's invention, discovery, or development that has or becomes vested in the employer by contract or by operation of law shall not be subject to revocation or rescission in the event of a dispute between the employer and employee concerning payment of compensation or benefits to the employee, subject to any contrary provision in the employee's written employment agreement.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-nc-57-2-rescission"
          },
          {
            "id": "morris-vested",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC",
            "citation": "Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC, 368 N.C. 857 (2016).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3212119/morris-v-scenera-research-llc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3212119/morris-v-scenera-research-llc/#:~:text=If%20an%20employee%20is%20hired,parties%20reached%20their%20original%20bargain.",
            "proposition": "Morris v. Scenera Research, assuming without deciding that the employee had been hired to invent, reasoned that allowing such an employee to rescind that agreement and reclaim ownership of inventions made during the employment would place the employee in a far better position, and the employer in a far worse position, than the parties' original bargain.",
            "verbatimQuote": "If an employee is hired to invent but could later rescind that agreement and claim ownership of inventions made during his or her employment, the employee would end up in a far better position, and the employer in a far worse position, than when the parties reached their original bargain.",
            "date": "2016-06-10",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-morris-vested"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "holdover-clause-limit",
        "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in North Carolina?",
        "answerText": "Only so far as they are reasonable. Neither § 66-57.1 nor § 66-57.2 caps post-employment assignment periods, and no reported North Carolina appellate decision found in our review squarely decides whether a trailer clause reaching inventions first conceived after employment ends is enforceable. The operative lens is North Carolina's ordinary restrictive-covenant law: a holdover clause that functions as a restraint on the departing employee's ability to work would most likely be tested for reasonableness under United Laboratories v. Kuykendall, and — critically — North Carolina rejects judicial blue-penciling, so under Beverage Systems and Whittaker an overbroad clause is not rewritten but simply left unenforced.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "nc-reasonableness",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall",
            "citation": "United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall, 322 N.C. 643 (1988).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1294109/united-laboratories-inc-v-kuykendall/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1294109/united-laboratories-inc-v-kuykendall/#:~:text=non%2Dcompetition%20clauses%20were%20in%20partial,and%20not%20against%20public%20policy.",
            "proposition": "United Laboratories v. Kuykendall states North Carolina's restrictive-covenant reasonableness standard: a non-competition covenant is upheld only where supported by valuable consideration, reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the covenantee, and not against public policy.",
            "verbatimQuote": "non-competition clauses were in partial restraint of trade, they would nevertheless be upheld if the covenants were supported by valuable consideration, reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the covenantee, and not against public policy.",
            "date": "1988-07-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-nc-reasonableness"
          },
          {
            "id": "nc-reasonableness-necessary",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall",
            "citation": "United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall, 322 N.C. 643 (1988).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1294109/united-laboratories-inc-v-kuykendall/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1294109/united-laboratories-inc-v-kuykendall/#:~:text=whether%20the%20covenant%20is%20reasonably,from%20improper%20or%20unfair%20competition.",
            "proposition": "United Laboratories v. Kuykendall frames the operative reasonableness inquiry as whether the covenant is reasonably necessary to protect the employer from improper or unfair competition.",
            "verbatimQuote": "whether the covenant is reasonably necessary to protect the employer from improper or unfair competition.",
            "date": "1988-07-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-nc-reasonableness-necessary"
          },
          {
            "id": "nc-no-reformation",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Beverage Systems of the Carolinas, LLC v. Associated Beverage Repair, LLC",
            "citation": "Beverage Systems of the Carolinas, LLC v. Associated Beverage Repair, LLC, 368 N.C. 693 (2016) (quoting Whittaker Gen. Med. Corp. v. Daniel, 324 N.C. 523 (1989)).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3186954/beverage-systems-of-the-carolinas-llc-v-associated-beverage-repair-llc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3186954/beverage-systems-of-the-carolinas-llc-v-associated-beverage-repair-llc/#:~:text=The%20courts%20will%20not%20rewrite,will%20simply%20not%20enforce%20it.",
            "proposition": "Beverage Systems of the Carolinas, reaffirming Whittaker General Medical Corp. v. Daniel, holds that North Carolina courts will not rewrite an overbroad restrictive covenant but will simply decline to enforce it — North Carolina rejects judicial reformation of overbroad restraints.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The courts will not rewrite a contract if it is too broad but will simply not enforce it.",
            "date": "2016-03-18",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-nc-no-reformation"
          },
          {
            "id": "nc-57-1-void-practice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1.",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_66/GS_66-57.1.html",
            "proposition": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.1 declares that, to the extent a provision purports to apply to a carved-out own-time invention, it is against the public policy of the State and is unenforceable.",
            "verbatimQuote": "To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to apply to the type of invention described, it is against the public policy of this State and is unenforceable.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-nc-57-1-void-practice"
          },
          {
            "id": "nc-57-2-rescission-practice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.2",
            "citation": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.2(b).",
            "url": "https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_66/GS_66-57.2.html",
            "proposition": "N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-57.2(b), as amended in 2016, provides that an employer's ownership of an employee invention that has vested by contract or operation of law is not subject to revocation or rescission in a dispute over compensation or benefits — subject to any contrary provision in the employee's written employment agreement, and inapplicable where the employee proves the employer acquired ownership fraudulently.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer's ownership of an employee's invention, discovery, or development that has or becomes vested in the employer by contract or by operation of law shall not be subject to revocation or rescission in the event of a dispute between the employer and employee concerning payment of compensation or benefits to the employee, subject to any contrary provision in the employee's written employment agreement.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-carolina#src-nc-57-2-rescission-practice"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}