{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "ohio", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Ohio", "description": "Ohio has no employee-invention-assignment statute for private employment — the only Ohio statutes on employee inventions vest ownership in state colleges and universities and in charter county hospitals — so an assignment clause is bounded 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. Absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent, and a post-employment holdover clause is policed only by Ohio's reasonableness limits on restraints — a federal court applying Ohio law voided a five-year holdover, though no Ohio appellate court has squarely ruled.", "state": "Ohio", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "Ohio has no employee-invention-assignment statute for private employment — its only employee-invention statutes vest ownership in state colleges and universities and in charter county hospitals — 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; absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent, with at most a shop right for the employer, and a post-employment holdover clause is tested only for reasonableness — a federal district court applying Ohio law voided a five-year holdover, but no Ohio state appellate decision found in our review has squarely ruled on such a clause.", "keyLaw": "No Ohio invention-assignment statute; Gemco Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Henderson, 151 Ohio St. 95 (1949); Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21 (1975); GTI Corp. v. Calhoon, 309 F. Supp. 762 (S.D. Ohio 1969)", "statutoryCarveOut": "none", "defaultOwnership": "employee", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "reasonablenessOnly", "carveOutScope": "Ohio has no statutory own-time carve-out for private employment — the only Ohio employee-invention statutes vest ownership in state colleges and universities and in charter county hospitals — so 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 and the employer's shop right), the federal patent and copyright overlay, and Ohio's general reasonableness limits on post-employment restraints." }, "about": [ "Ohio invention assignment", "Ohio no invention-assignment statute", "Ohio employee invention ownership", "Gemco Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Henderson", "GTI Corp. v. Calhoon", "Ohio hired to invent", "Ohio shop right", "Ohio 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 an Ohio employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. Ohio has no private-employment invention-assignment statute — nothing like California Labor Code § 2870 that voids an assignment of a true own-time, own-resource invention — so an assignment clause's reach is bounded only by ordinary contract law, Ohio's common-law ownership rules, and the federal patent and copyright overlay. The employee-invention statutes Ohio does have run the opposite direction and stop at the public sector, vesting ownership in state institutions rather than protecting employees.", "sources": [ { "id": "gemco-common-law-framework", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Gemco Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Henderson", "citation": "Gemco Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Henderson, 151 Ohio St. 95 (1949).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4027978/gemco-engineering-mfg-co-v-henderson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4027978/gemco-engineering-mfg-co-v-henderson/#:~:text=This%20court%20is%20in%20agreement,Henderson%20may%20have%20theretofore%20made.", "proposition": "Gemco Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Henderson resolves employee-invention ownership entirely under Ohio common law — the court asked whether the employee was hired to invent and held that he owned his inventions — showing that the reach of an assignment clause in Ohio is a matter of contract and common law, not a statutory carve-out.", "verbatimQuote": "This court is in agreement with the Court of Appeals in finding, under the evidence, that Henderson was not employed by Gemco to invent, and that he is the owner of the inventions of both the mounter and demounter, subject to any assignment or assignments thereof which Henderson may have theretofore made.", "date": "1949-03-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio#src-gemco-common-law-framework" }, { "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/ohio#src-stanford-baseline" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must an Ohio employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Ohio 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). Disclosure and assignment duties in Ohio are creatures of the contract, and Ohio courts enforce them according to the agreement's plain language.", "sources": [ { "id": "precision-strip-contract-governs", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Precision Strip, Inc. v. Dircksen", "citation": "Precision Strip, Inc. v. Dircksen, 2020-Ohio-6668 (3d Dist.).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4838860/precision-strip-inc-v-dircksen/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4838860/precision-strip-inc-v-dircksen/#:~:text=clearly%20and%20unambiguously%20establishes%20the,it%20was%20conceived%20by%20Dircksen.", "proposition": "Precision Strip, Inc. v. Dircksen enforced the plain language of an invention-assignment agreement, holding that the parties' contract itself determined that ownership passed automatically — so in Ohio, disclosure and assignment duties arise from the agreement rather than from any notice-requiring statute.", "verbatimQuote": "clearly and unambiguously establishes the parties agreed that ownership of the intellectual property at issue automatically passed to Precision Strip at the time it was conceived by Dircksen.", "date": "2020-12-14", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio#src-precision-strip-contract-governs" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Ohio?", "answerText": "The inventor, unless hired to invent. Absent a written assignment, the employee who conceived the invention owns it. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that an employee who was not employed to invent owned his inventions outright — with the employer taking at most a shop right, a non-exclusive right to use the invention rather than ownership of it, in a device developed in the employer's shop at the employer's expense.", "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/ohio#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/ohio#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "gemco-not-hired-to-invent", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Gemco Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Henderson", "citation": "Gemco Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Henderson, 151 Ohio St. 95 (1949).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4027978/gemco-engineering-mfg-co-v-henderson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4027978/gemco-engineering-mfg-co-v-henderson/#:~:text=This%20court%20is%20in%20agreement,Henderson%20may%20have%20theretofore%20made.", "proposition": "Gemco Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Henderson holds that an employee who was not employed to invent owned both of his inventions, anchoring Ohio's common-law default that the employee-inventor owns absent hired-to-invent facts or an express assignment.", "verbatimQuote": "This court is in agreement with the Court of Appeals in finding, under the evidence, that Henderson was not employed by Gemco to invent, and that he is the owner of the inventions of both the mounter and demounter, subject to any assignment or assignments thereof which Henderson may have theretofore made.", "date": "1949-03-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio#src-gemco-not-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "gemco-shop-right", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Gemco Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Henderson", "citation": "Gemco Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Henderson, 151 Ohio St. 95 (1949).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4027978/gemco-engineering-mfg-co-v-henderson/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4027978/gemco-engineering-mfg-co-v-henderson/#:~:text=Where%20an%20employee%2C%20even%20though,device%20invented%20by%20the%20employee.", "proposition": "Gemco Engineering & Mfg. Co. v. Henderson holds that when an employee not hired to invent develops an invention in the employer's shop at the employer's expense, equity gives the employer a shop right — a right to make, use, and sell the invention — rather than ownership.", "verbatimQuote": "Where an employee, even though not hired to invent, develops an invention in his employer's shop at the expense of his employer, equity will intervene to protect the employer against later exclusive adverse claims of the employee-inventor by giving the employer a shop right in the invention thereby enabling the employer to make, use and sell the device invented by the employee.", "date": "1949-03-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio#src-gemco-shop-right" }, { "id": "precision-strip-present-transfer", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Precision Strip, Inc. v. Dircksen", "citation": "Precision Strip, Inc. v. Dircksen, 2020-Ohio-6668 (3d Dist.).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4838860/precision-strip-inc-v-dircksen/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4838860/precision-strip-inc-v-dircksen/#:~:text=Employee%E2%80%99s%20rights%20and%20interests%20therein%20shall%20pass%20to%20the%20Company%20at%20the%20time%20of%20conception%20of%20%5Bsic%5D%20acquisition%20thereof%20by%20Employee.", "proposition": "Precision Strip, Inc. v. Dircksen enforced present-transfer assignment language under which the employee's rights passed to the company at the time of conception, holding that ownership transferred automatically without any assignment-request condition precedent.", "verbatimQuote": "Employee’s rights and interests therein shall pass to the Company at the time of conception of [sic] acquisition thereof by Employee.", "date": "2020-12-14", "pullQuoteLocator": "Employee’s rights and interests therein shall pass to the Company at the time of conception of [sic] acquisition thereof by Employee.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio#src-precision-strip-present-transfer" } ] }, { "slug": "holdover-clause-limit", "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?", "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Ohio?", "answerText": "Only if reasonable — and the on-point authority is thin. No Ohio statute caps how long a trailing clause may run, so the governing test is Ohio's general reasonableness standard for post-employment restraints. The one decision to face a trailing invention-assignment clause directly — a federal district court applying Ohio law — voided a five-year disclose-and-assign holdover as against public policy, and no Ohio state appellate decision found in our review has squarely ruled on such a clause.", "sources": [ { "id": "gti-five-year-holdover-void", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "GTI Corp. v. Calhoon", "citation": "GTI Corp. v. Calhoon, 309 F. Supp. 762 (S.D. Ohio 1969).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2096316/gti-corporation-v-calhoon/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2096316/gti-corporation-v-calhoon/#:~:text=The%20provision%20of%20the%20contract,is%20void%20against%20public%20policy.", "proposition": "GTI Corp. v. Calhoon, a federal district court applying Ohio law, held that a clause requiring a former employee to disclose and assign ideas conceived for five years after termination unreasonably restricted his right to use his general skill and knowledge and was void against public policy — the direct demonstration that Ohio's reasonableness test governs trailing invention-assignment clauses.", "verbatimQuote": "The provision of the contract requiring defendant Calhoon to disclose and assign to plaintiff any ideas or improvements conceived by him for five years after termination of his employment with plaintiff unreasonably restricts Calhoon’s right to utilize his general skill and knowledge in subsequent employment and is void against public policy.", "date": "1969-11-28", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio#src-gti-five-year-holdover-void" }, { "id": "raimonde-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah", "citation": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21 (1975).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/#:~:text=A%20covenant%20restraining%20an%20employee,not%20injurious%20to%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah states Ohio's controlling three-prong reasonableness standard for post-employment restraints — no greater than required for the employer's protection, no undue hardship on the employee, and not injurious to the public — the framework an Ohio court would apply to a trailing invention-assignment clause.", "verbatimQuote": "A covenant restraining an employee from competing with his former employer upon termination of employment is reasonable if it is no greater than is required for the protection of the employer, does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public.", "date": "1975-04-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio#src-raimonde-reasonableness" }, { "id": "raimonde-modification", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah", "citation": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah, 42 Ohio St.2d 21 (1975).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6865409/raimonde-v-van-vlerah/#:~:text=Courts%20are%20empowered%20to%20modify,agreements%20to%20achieve%20such%20results.", "proposition": "Raimonde v. Van Vlerah abandons the blue-pencil rule and empowers Ohio courts to modify or amend an overbroad employment restraint to a reasonable scope rather than strike it wholesale.", "verbatimQuote": "Courts are empowered to modify or amend employment agreements to achieve such results.", "date": "1975-04-02", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio#src-raimonde-modification" }, { "id": "precision-strip-undecided-tail", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Precision Strip, Inc. v. Dircksen", "citation": "Precision Strip, Inc. v. Dircksen, 2020-Ohio-6668 (3d Dist.).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4838860/precision-strip-inc-v-dircksen/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4838860/precision-strip-inc-v-dircksen/#:~:text=clearly%20and%20unambiguously%20establishes%20the,it%20was%20conceived%20by%20Dircksen.", "proposition": "Precision Strip, Inc. v. Dircksen — the modern Ohio appellate decision closest to the holdover question — decided only that ownership of an invention conceived during employment passed automatically under the agreement's present-transfer language; it enforced an agreement containing a six-month post-employment tail without ruling on the tail's validity.", "verbatimQuote": "clearly and unambiguously establishes the parties agreed that ownership of the intellectual property at issue automatically passed to Precision Strip at the time it was conceived by Dircksen.", "date": "2020-12-14", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/ohio#src-precision-strip-undecided-tail" } ] } ] } }