{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "invention-assignment",
    "state": "north-dakota",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in North Dakota",
      "description": "North Dakota has no California-style own-time carve-out — instead, N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 makes what an employee acquires by virtue of the employment belong to the employer, a default the Eighth Circuit construed for patent ownership through the hired-to-invent lens in Keller v. Clark Equipment Co. and the North Dakota Supreme Court adopted in First American Bank West v. Berdahl. There is no notice requirement, a written present-assignment clause is still needed for clean federal patent title, and a post-employment holdover clause that functions as a restraint faces outright voidness under N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06 rather than reasonableness balancing.",
      "state": "North Dakota",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "bottomLine": "North Dakota is an employer-ownership outlier — N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 makes everything an employee acquires by virtue of the employment belong to the employer, a default construed for patent ownership through the hired-to-invent lens in Keller v. Clark Equipment Co. (8th Cir. 1983) and adopted by the North Dakota Supreme Court in First American Bank West v. Berdahl (N.D. 1996); there is no own-time carve-out and no notice duty, and a post-employment holdover clause that operates as a restraint on a former employee faces outright voidness under N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06, which admits no reasonableness test and no judicial rewriting.",
        "keyLaw": "N.D. Cent. Code §§ 34-02-11, 9-08-06; Keller v. Clark Equipment Co., 715 F.2d 1280 (8th Cir. 1983); First American Bank West v. Berdahl, 556 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1996)",
        "statutoryCarveOut": "employerOwnership",
        "defaultOwnership": "employerHiredToInvent",
        "employeeNoticeRequired": "no",
        "holdoverClauseLimit": "statutoryLimit",
        "carveOutScope": "No employee carve-out — N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 is an employer-acquisition default, not a ceiling on assignment clauses. The construing cases applied it in a hired-to-invent posture (Keller) and to employment compensation (Berdahl), so its reach over an invention by an employee who was not hired to invent is an open question; contractual overreach is limited only by general contract defenses and, for post-employment reach, by the outright-voidness rule of N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06."
      },
      "about": [
        "North Dakota invention assignment",
        "N.D.C.C. 34-02-11 products of employment",
        "North Dakota employer ownership default",
        "Keller v. Clark Equipment Co.",
        "First American Bank West v. Berdahl",
        "N.D.C.C. 9-08-06 restraint of trade",
        "North Dakota 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 North Dakota employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "answerText": "There is no employee carve-out — the statute runs the other way. North Dakota has no §2870-style law protecting an employee's own-time, own-resource inventions. Instead, N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 provides that everything an employee acquires by virtue of the employment belongs to the employer, except compensation due the employee — an employer-acquisition default, not a limit on assignment clauses. The Eighth Circuit applied that statute to patent ownership in Keller v. Clark Equipment Co., and the North Dakota Supreme Court adopted the Keller construction in First American Bank West v. Berdahl.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "nd-34-02-11-employer-acquisition",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.D. Cent. Code § 34-02-11",
            "citation": "N.D. Cent. Code § 34-02-11.",
            "url": "https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t34c02.pdf",
            "proposition": "N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 makes everything an employee acquires by virtue of the employment, other than compensation due the employee, belong to the employer — an employer-acquisition default with no own-time employee carve-out.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Everything which an employee acquires by virtue of the employee's employment, whether acquired lawfully or unlawfully or during or after the expiration of the term of the employee's employment, except any compensation which is due the employee from the employee's employer, belongs to the employer.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-nd-34-02-11-employer-acquisition"
          },
          {
            "id": "keller-patent-application",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Keller v. Clark Equipment Co.",
            "citation": "Keller v. Clark Equipment Co., 715 F.2d 1280 (8th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1044 (1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/423972/louis-j-keller-and-cyril-n-keller-v-clark-equipment-company-and-clark/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/423972/louis-j-keller-and-cyril-n-keller-v-clark-equipment-company-and-clark/#:~:text=Melroe%20would%20have%20been%20the,patent%20under%20N.D.Cent.Code%20%C2%A7%2034%2D02%2D11.",
            "proposition": "Keller v. Clark Equipment Co., applying North Dakota law in a hired-to-invent posture, holds that absent a contrary agreement the employer would have been the exclusive owner of the employee's patent under N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 — the statute operates on patent ownership.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Melroe would have been the exclusive owner of the 117 patent under N.D.Cent.Code § 34-02-11.",
            "date": "1983-08-11",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-keller-patent-application"
          },
          {
            "id": "berdahl-adopts-keller-q1",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "First American Bank West v. Berdahl",
            "citation": "First American Bank West v. Berdahl, 556 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1996).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/895707/first-american-bank-west-v-berdahl/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/895707/first-american-bank-west-v-berdahl/#:~:text=Following%20the%20Keller%20interpretation%20of,Berdahl%20belonged%20to%20the%20Bank.",
            "proposition": "First American Bank West v. Berdahl adopts the Keller construction of N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 as North Dakota law — absent an agreement to the contrary, what the employee acquires by virtue of the employment belongs to the employer.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Following the Keller interpretation of N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11, we conclude, absent an agreement to the contrary, the commissions earned by Berdahl belonged to the Bank.",
            "date": "1996-11-13",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-berdahl-adopts-keller-q1"
          },
          {
            "id": "nd-47-07-04-products-of-the-mind",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.D. Cent. Code § 47-07-04",
            "citation": "N.D. Cent. Code § 47-07-04.",
            "url": "https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t47c07.pdf",
            "proposition": "N.D.C.C. § 47-07-04 gives the author of any product of the mind, expressly including an invention, exclusive ownership while the product remains in the author's possession — an author-ownership companion provision whose interplay with § 34-02-11 no case found in our review has resolved.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The author of any product of the mind, whether it is an invention, a composition in letters or art, a design, with or without delineation or other graphical representation, has an exclusive ownership therein and in the representation or expression thereof which continues as long as the product and the representations or expressions thereof made by the author remain in the author's possession.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-nd-47-07-04-products-of-the-mind"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "employee-notice",
        "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?",
        "heading": "Must a North Dakota employer notify the employee?",
        "answerText": "No. North Dakota has a statutory invention-ownership regime, but it imposes no notice, disclosure, or acknowledgment duty of any kind — the contrast is with California, which requires written notice of the Labor Code §2870 carve-out under §2872, and Washington, which requires one under RCW 49.44.140(3). Those notice duties exist to mark a statutory employee carve-out; N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 protects the employer, not the employee, so there is no statutory line for a notice to mark.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "nd-34-02-11-no-notice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.D. Cent. Code § 34-02-11",
            "citation": "N.D. Cent. Code § 34-02-11.",
            "url": "https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t34c02.pdf",
            "proposition": "N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 vests the employer's interest by operation of law without conditioning it on any notice to, or disclosure by, the employee — North Dakota imposes no statutory invention-assignment notice requirement.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Everything which an employee acquires by virtue of the employee's employment, whether acquired lawfully or unlawfully or during or after the expiration of the term of the employee's employment, except any compensation which is due the employee from the employee's employer, belongs to the employer.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-nd-34-02-11-no-notice"
          },
          {
            "id": "nd-34-02-12-accounting",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.D. Cent. Code § 34-02-12",
            "citation": "N.D. Cent. Code § 34-02-12.",
            "url": "https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t34c02.pdf",
            "proposition": "N.D.C.C. § 34-02-12 is an employee accounting-and-remittance duty, not an invention-disclosure regime — it obliges the employee to account and give notice of what is received for the employer's account, and imposes no notice duty on the employer.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employee, upon demand, shall render to the employee's employer just accounts of all the employee's transactions in the course of the employee's service as often as may be reasonable, and the employee shall give, without demand, prompt notice to the employee's employer of everything which the employee receives for the employer's account.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-nd-34-02-12-accounting"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "default-ownership",
        "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?",
        "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in North Dakota?",
        "answerText": "For an employee hired to invent, the employer — by statute as construed. In Keller v. Clark Equipment Co., the Eighth Circuit read N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 through the prevailing hired-to-invent rule: an employee hired for inventive work who succeeds must assign the resulting patent, so absent a contrary agreement the employer owns. The North Dakota Supreme Court adopted that construction in First American Bank West v. Berdahl. For an employee who was not hired to invent, the question is open — the statute's literal everything-belongs-to-the-employer text points one way, the federal baseline that an invention belongs to its inventor points the other, and no North Dakota shop-right decision was found in our review.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "keller-prevailing-view",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Keller v. Clark Equipment Co.",
            "citation": "Keller v. Clark Equipment Co., 715 F.2d 1280 (8th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1044 (1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/423972/louis-j-keller-and-cyril-n-keller-v-clark-equipment-company-and-clark/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/423972/louis-j-keller-and-cyril-n-keller-v-clark-equipment-company-and-clark/#:~:text=Although%20there%20are%20no%20cases,may%20obtain%20on%20the%20invention.",
            "proposition": "Keller v. Clark Equipment Co. construes N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 through the prevailing hired-to-invent rule — an employee employed to invent who succeeds makes the employer the equitable owner of the invention, with a duty to assign any resulting patent.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Although there are no cases construing this North Dakota law, the prevailing view in the United States is that when a person is employed for the purpose of inventing, and he or she succeeds in that task during the period of employment, the employer is the equitable owner of the invention and the employee must assign to the employer any patent he or she may obtain on the invention.",
            "date": "1983-08-11",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-keller-prevailing-view"
          },
          {
            "id": "keller-hired-for-inventive-abilities",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Keller v. Clark Equipment Co.",
            "citation": "Keller v. Clark Equipment Co., 715 F.2d 1280 (8th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1044 (1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/423972/louis-j-keller-and-cyril-n-keller-v-clark-equipment-company-and-clark/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/423972/louis-j-keller-and-cyril-n-keller-v-clark-equipment-company-and-clark/#:~:text=The%20district%20court%20found%20that%20Louis,hired%20for%20his%20inventive%20abilities.",
            "proposition": "Keller v. Clark Equipment Co. applied N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 in a hired-to-invent posture — the district court found the inventor was hired for his inventive abilities, which is what brought the patent within the statute's reach.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The district court found that Louis Keller was hired for his inventive abilities.",
            "date": "1983-08-11",
            "pullQuoteLocator": "The district court found that Louis|hired for his inventive abilities.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-keller-hired-for-inventive-abilities"
          },
          {
            "id": "berdahl-adopts-keller",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "First American Bank West v. Berdahl",
            "citation": "First American Bank West v. Berdahl, 556 N.W.2d 63 (N.D. 1996).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/895707/first-american-bank-west-v-berdahl/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/895707/first-american-bank-west-v-berdahl/#:~:text=Following%20the%20Keller%20interpretation%20of,Berdahl%20belonged%20to%20the%20Bank.",
            "proposition": "First American Bank West v. Berdahl adopts the Keller construction of N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11 as North Dakota law and preserves the agreement-to-the-contrary escape — absent such an agreement, what the employee acquires by virtue of the employment belongs to the employer.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Following the Keller interpretation of N.D.C.C. § 34-02-11, we conclude, absent an agreement to the contrary, the commissions earned by Berdahl belonged to the Bank.",
            "date": "1996-11-13",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-berdahl-adopts-keller"
          },
          {
            "id": "stanford-inventor-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 federal baseline a state acquisition statute operates against, and the reason a written present assignment is still needed for clean legal title.",
            "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-dakota#src-stanford-inventor-baseline"
          },
          {
            "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. supplies the federal common-law framework Keller drew on — an employee hired to make an invention must assign the resulting patent, while an employee not hired to invent ordinarily keeps the invention subject at most to the employer's shop right.",
            "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/north-dakota#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "holdover-clause-limit",
        "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in North Dakota?",
        "answerText": "Untested — and the governing framework is voidness, not reasonableness. No North Dakota decision found in our review addresses a post-employment trailing-assignment clause. The statute such a clause would be tested under is N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06, which voids a contract restraining anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business to that extent, subject only to narrow sale-of-goodwill and business-dissolution exceptions. The North Dakota Supreme Court reads the statute strictly and has refused to soften it with judicially created exceptions, so a holdover clause that operates as a de facto non-compete faces being struck outright — severed as void, not rewritten to a reasonable scope.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "nd-9-08-06-restraint-void",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.D. Cent. Code § 9-08-06",
            "citation": "N.D. Cent. Code § 9-08-06.",
            "url": "https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t09c08.pdf",
            "proposition": "N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06 voids a contract restraining anyone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business to that extent, subject only to narrow enumerated exceptions — the void-outright framework a post-employment trailing-assignment clause that functions as a restraint would be tested under.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A contract by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void, except:",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-nd-9-08-06-restraint-void"
          },
          {
            "id": "warner-no-ambiguity",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Warner and Co. v. Solberg",
            "citation": "Warner and Co. v. Solberg, 2001 ND 156, 634 N.W.2d 65.",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/896854/warner-co-v-solberg/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/896854/warner-co-v-solberg/#:~:text=We%20see%20no%20ambiguity%20in%20N.D.C.C.%20%C2%A7%209%2D08%2D06.",
            "proposition": "Warner and Co. v. Solberg holds that N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06 is unambiguous — post-employment restraints are void to that extent, with no reasonableness gloss.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We see no ambiguity in N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06.",
            "date": "2001-09-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-warner-no-ambiguity"
          },
          {
            "id": "warner-declines-california",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Warner and Co. v. Solberg",
            "citation": "Warner and Co. v. Solberg, 2001 ND 156, 634 N.W.2d 65.",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/896854/warner-co-v-solberg/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/896854/warner-co-v-solberg/#:~:text=Because%20of%20the%20plain%20language,we%20decline%20to%20do%20so.",
            "proposition": "Warner and Co. v. Solberg expressly declined to adopt the judicially created softening doctrines other courts have layered onto identically derived restraint statutes — North Dakota courts will not save a covered restraint by narrowing it or implying exceptions.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Because of the plain language of the statute, the history of legislation in North Dakota concerning this issue, and because North Dakota has enacted trade-secrets legislation, we decline to do so.",
            "date": "2001-09-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-warner-declines-california"
          },
          {
            "id": "osborne-strong-public-policy",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Osborne v. Brown & Saenger, Inc.",
            "citation": "Osborne v. Brown & Saenger, Inc., 2017 ND 288, 904 N.W.2d 34.",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4449595/osborne-v-brown-saenger-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4449595/osborne-v-brown-saenger-inc/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20we%20conclude%20that%20North,public%20policy%20against%20non%2Dcompete%20agreements.",
            "proposition": "Osborne v. Brown & Saenger, Inc. holds that North Dakota has a strong public policy against non-compete agreements — the policy backdrop against which a holdover clause characterized as a restraint would be judged.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Thus, we conclude that North Dakota has a strong public policy against non-compete agreements.",
            "date": "2017-12-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-osborne-strong-public-policy"
          },
          {
            "id": "solarbee-piia-enforced",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "SolarBee, Inc. v. Walker",
            "citation": "SolarBee, Inc. v. Walker, 2013 ND 110, 833 N.W.2d 422.",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/931224/solarbee-inc-v-walker/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/931224/solarbee-inc-v-walker/#:~:text=violated%20the%20Proprietary%20Information%20Agreement,or%20services%20offered%20by%20SolarBee.",
            "proposition": "SolarBee, Inc. v. Walker affirms a damages judgment for breach of a proprietary-information-and-invention-assignment agreement based on during-employment disloyalty — North Dakota courts enforce these agreements as to conduct during employment.",
            "verbatimQuote": "violated the Proprietary Information Agreement and Invention Assignment by diverting customers, engaging in conflicting activities and consulting and rendering services to persons or entities marketing products to or in competition with systems or services offered by SolarBee.",
            "date": "2013-06-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-solarbee-piia-enforced"
          },
          {
            "id": "solarbee-postemployment-open",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "SolarBee, Inc. v. Walker",
            "citation": "SolarBee, Inc. v. Walker, 2013 ND 110, 833 N.W.2d 422.",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/931224/solarbee-inc-v-walker/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/931224/solarbee-inc-v-walker/#:~:text=In%20their%20pre%2Dtrial%20brief%2C%20Walker,do%20not%20include%20post%2Demployment%20conduct.",
            "proposition": "SolarBee, Inc. v. Walker shows the § 9-08-06 post-employment question was raised and expressly left undecided — the defendants abandoned the argument only because the findings involved no post-employment conduct, so how the statute applies to post-employment restraints in an invention-assignment agreement remains open.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In their pre-trial brief, Walker and Eilers raised North Dakota’s public policy against restraints on solicitation after employment ceases, see N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06; Warner and Co. v. Solberg, 2001 ND 156 , 634 N.W.2d 65 , but they do not renew it in view of the findings that do not include post-employment conduct.",
            "date": "2013-06-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-solarbee-postemployment-open"
          },
          {
            "id": "nd-9-08-06-void-practice",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "N.D. Cent. Code § 9-08-06",
            "citation": "N.D. Cent. Code § 9-08-06.",
            "url": "https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t09c08.pdf",
            "proposition": "N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06 voids a covered restraint to that extent — severance of the offending clause, not reformation — so an untethered holdover clause characterized as a restraint falls entirely rather than being trimmed.",
            "verbatimQuote": "A contract by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void, except:",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-nd-9-08-06-void-practice"
          },
          {
            "id": "warner-no-softening-practice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Warner and Co. v. Solberg",
            "citation": "Warner and Co. v. Solberg, 2001 ND 156, 634 N.W.2d 65.",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/896854/warner-co-v-solberg/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/896854/warner-co-v-solberg/#:~:text=Because%20of%20the%20plain%20language,we%20decline%20to%20do%20so.",
            "proposition": "Warner and Co. v. Solberg declined to adopt judicially created softening doctrines for N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06 — a drafter cannot count on a North Dakota court preserving a less burdensome version of an overbroad restraint.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Because of the plain language of the statute, the history of legislation in North Dakota concerning this issue, and because North Dakota has enacted trade-secrets legislation, we decline to do so.",
            "date": "2001-09-05",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-warner-no-softening-practice"
          },
          {
            "id": "osborne-anti-evasion-practice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Osborne v. Brown & Saenger, Inc.",
            "citation": "Osborne v. Brown & Saenger, Inc., 2017 ND 288, 904 N.W.2d 34.",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4449595/osborne-v-brown-saenger-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4449595/osborne-v-brown-saenger-inc/#:~:text=the%20forum%2Dselection%20clause%20in%20the,or%20business%20in%20North%20Dakota.",
            "proposition": "Osborne v. Brown & Saenger, Inc. refused to enforce a forum-selection clause that would have routed the dispute around N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06 — foreign forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses cannot be used to evade North Dakota's restraint statute.",
            "verbatimQuote": "the forum-selection clause in the parties’ employment agreement violates North Dakota’s public policy against non-compete agreements. The non-compete clause is unenforceable under N.D.C.C. § 9-08-06 to the extent it limits Osborne from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business in North Dakota.",
            "date": "2017-12-07",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/north-dakota#src-osborne-anti-evasion-practice"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}