{ "type": "practice-guide", "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon", "links": [ { "rel": "self", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon.json", "type": "application/json" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon", "type": "text/html" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon/markdown", "type": "text/markdown" }, { "rel": "alternate", "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon/json", "type": "application/json" } ], "data": { "topic": "invention-assignment", "state": "oregon", "frontmatter": { "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Oregon", "description": "Oregon 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 overlay — not a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement. Absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent, subject to the employer's shop right; Oregon's noncompete statute does not reach assignment clauses, and the Oregon Court of Appeals has said in dicta that an employer may capture inventions conceived during employment and for a reasonable period after termination, so a holdover clause would be judged under Oregon's common-law reasonableness rule for partial restraints.", "state": "Oregon", "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "authors": [ "steven-obiajulu" ], "summary": { "bottomLine": "Oregon 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 overlay — not a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement; absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent, subject to the employer's shop right, and because assignment clauses fall outside Oregon's noncompete statute a post-employment holdover clause would be judged under Oregon's common-law reasonableness rule for partial restraints — the Oregon Court of Appeals has endorsed a reasonable-period tail only in dicta, and no Oregon decision found in our review has enforced or struck one on the merits.", "keyLaw": "No Oregon invention-assignment statute; Mainland Industries v. Timberland Machines, 58 Or. App. 585 (1982); White's Electronics v. Teknetics, 67 Or. App. 63 (1984); Eldridge v. Johnston, 195 Or. 379 (1952)", "statutoryCarveOut": "none", "defaultOwnership": "employee", "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a", "holdoverClauseLimit": "reasonablenessOnly", "carveOutScope": "Oregon 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 and the employer's shop right), and the federal patent and copyright overlay." }, "about": [ "Oregon invention assignment", "Oregon no invention-assignment statute", "Oregon employee invention ownership", "Mainland Industries v. Timberland Machines", "White's Electronics v. Teknetics", "Oregon hired to invent", "Oregon shop right", "Oregon holdover trailing assignment", "ORS 653.295 invention 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 Oregon employer require assignment of every invention?", "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. Unlike California or Washington, Oregon has no employee-invention-assignment statute — nothing 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, the common-law inventor-owns default, and the federal patent overlay. Oregon's own appellate court states the baseline the clause is drafted against: in a general employment relationship, the employee keeps the patent.", "sources": [ { "id": "mainland-general-default", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mainland Industries, Inc. v. Timberland Machines & Engineering Corp.", "citation": "Mainland Industries, Inc. v. Timberland Machines & Engineering Corp., 58 Or. App. 585, 649 P.2d 613 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1319588/mainland-industries-inc-v-timberland-machines-engineering-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1319588/mainland-industries-inc-v-timberland-machines-engineering-corp/#:~:text=When%20the%20employment%20relationship%20is,to%20the%20employer%E2%80%99s%20product%20line.", "proposition": "Mainland Industries states Oregon's common-law default that an employee in a general employment relationship retains any patent the employee procures, even one relating to the employer's product line — the baseline an assignment clause is drafted against.", "verbatimQuote": "When the employment relationship is general, an employe is entitled to retain any patent he procures, even though the patent relates to the employer’s product line.", "date": "1982-08-18", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon#src-mainland-general-default" }, { "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 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/oregon#src-stanford-inventor-baseline" } ] }, { "slug": "employee-notice", "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?", "heading": "Must an Oregon employer notify the employee?", "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Oregon 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 contrast within Oregon law is instructive: where the legislature wants an advance-notice formality in an employment agreement, it says so — the noncompete statute conditions validity on written notice before employment begins — and it has imposed nothing similar for invention assignments.", "sources": [ { "id": "ors-noncompete-notice-contrast", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "ORS 653.295", "citation": "Or. Rev. Stat. § 653.295(1)(a)(A) (2025).", "url": "https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors653.html", "proposition": "ORS 653.295(1)(a)(A) conditions the validity of a covered noncompetition agreement on advance written notice in the employment offer — showing that Oregon attaches notice formalities to employment covenants by express statute, and it has enacted no notice requirement for invention-assignment clauses.", "verbatimQuote": "The employer informs the employee in a written employment offer received by the employee at least two weeks before the first day of the employee’s employment that a noncompetition agreement is required as a condition of employment", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon#src-ors-noncompete-notice-contrast" }, { "id": "mainland-agreement-framework", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mainland Industries, Inc. v. Timberland Machines & Engineering Corp.", "citation": "Mainland Industries, Inc. v. Timberland Machines & Engineering Corp., 58 Or. App. 585, 649 P.2d 613 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1319588/mainland-industries-inc-v-timberland-machines-engineering-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1319588/mainland-industries-inc-v-timberland-machines-engineering-corp/#:~:text=Absent%20an%20agreement%20to%20the,invention%20belongs%20to%20the%20employer.", "proposition": "Mainland Industries frames the duty to assign as a function of the parties' agreement and the manner of engagement — absent an agreement to the contrary, ownership follows the common-law categories — so in Oregon disclosure and assignment duties arise from the contract, not from a notice-requiring statute.", "verbatimQuote": "Absent an agreement to the contrary, when an employe is hired to invent, or is assigned the responsibility for solving a particular problem, any resulting invention belongs to the employer.", "date": "1982-08-18", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon#src-mainland-agreement-framework" } ] }, { "slug": "default-ownership", "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?", "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Oregon?", "answerText": "The inventor, unless hired to invent. Absent a written assignment, Oregon follows the common-law rule that an employee in a general employment relationship keeps any patent the employee procures — even one relating to the employer's product line — while an employee hired to invent, or assigned a particular problem to solve, must assign the resulting invention to the employer. Where neither applies but the employee used the employer's time and materials, the employer gets only a shop right, a non-assignable license rather than ownership.", "sources": [ { "id": "mainland-employee-default", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mainland Industries, Inc. v. Timberland Machines & Engineering Corp.", "citation": "Mainland Industries, Inc. v. Timberland Machines & Engineering Corp., 58 Or. App. 585, 649 P.2d 613 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1319588/mainland-industries-inc-v-timberland-machines-engineering-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1319588/mainland-industries-inc-v-timberland-machines-engineering-corp/#:~:text=When%20the%20employment%20relationship%20is,to%20the%20employer%E2%80%99s%20product%20line.", "proposition": "Mainland Industries holds that when the employment relationship is general, the employee is entitled to retain any patent the employee procures, even one relating to the employer's product line — Oregon's default rule absent a written assignment.", "verbatimQuote": "When the employment relationship is general, an employe is entitled to retain any patent he procures, even though the patent relates to the employer’s product line.", "date": "1982-08-18", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon#src-mainland-employee-default" }, { "id": "whites-hired-to-invent", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "White's Electronics, Inc. v. Teknetics, Inc.", "citation": "White's Electronics, Inc. v. Teknetics, Inc., 67 Or. App. 63, 677 P.2d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1308336/whites-electronics-inc-v-teknetics-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1308336/whites-electronics-inc-v-teknetics-inc/#:~:text=Absent%20an%20agreement%20to%20the,all%20rights%20in%20the%20invention.", "proposition": "White's Electronics holds that an employee hired to invent who succeeds during the term of service is bound to assign all rights in the invention to the employer, applying the rule to an inventor hired for his inventive abilities even without a written agreement in force.", "verbatimQuote": "Absent an agreement to the contrary, an employe who is hired to invent, and who succeeds during his term of service in accomplishing that task, is bound to assign to the employer all rights in the invention.", "date": "1984-02-22", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon#src-whites-hired-to-invent" }, { "id": "mainland-shop-right", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mainland Industries, Inc. v. Timberland Machines & Engineering Corp.", "citation": "Mainland Industries, Inc. v. Timberland Machines & Engineering Corp., 58 Or. App. 585, 649 P.2d 613 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1319588/mainland-industries-inc-v-timberland-machines-engineering-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1319588/mainland-industries-inc-v-timberland-machines-engineering-corp/#:~:text=Under%20that%20doctrine%2C%20an%20employer,the%20employer%E2%80%99s%20time%20and%20materials.", "proposition": "Mainland Industries describes Oregon's shop-right doctrine — an employer is granted a non-assignable license, not ownership, when a general-capacity employee creates an invention using the employer's time and materials.", "verbatimQuote": "Under that doctrine, an employer is granted a non-assignable license to a patent when an employe who works in a general or non-inventive capacity creates an invention using the employer’s time and materials.", "date": "1982-08-18", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon#src-mainland-shop-right" }, { "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 — the rule both Oregon decisions cite as the source of their framework.", "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/oregon#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 Oregon?", "answerText": "Probably yes if kept to a reasonable tail — but the Oregon authority is thin. The Oregon Court of Appeals has said, in dicta, that employers may protect themselves with contracts capturing inventions conceived during employment and for a reasonable period after termination; the clause in that very case was never enforced, and no Oregon decision found in our review has enforced or struck a trailing-assignment clause on the merits. Because assignment clauses fall outside the noncompete statute's definition, the limit a court would most likely apply is Oregon's common-law reasonableness rule for partial restraints of trade.", "sources": [ { "id": "whites-holdover-dicta", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "White's Electronics, Inc. v. Teknetics, Inc.", "citation": "White's Electronics, Inc. v. Teknetics, Inc., 67 Or. App. 63, 677 P.2d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1308336/whites-electronics-inc-v-teknetics-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1308336/whites-electronics-inc-v-teknetics-inc/#:~:text=Our%20response%20is%20that%20employers,period%20of%20time%20after%20termination.", "proposition": "White's Electronics, answering the employer's policy argument, says in dicta that employers may protect themselves with contracts assigning inventions conceived during employment and during a reasonable period after termination — Oregon's only appellate endorsement of a holdover tail.", "verbatimQuote": "Our response is that employers could protect themselves by requiring inventors to enter into contracts that provide that the employer is entitled to any inventions conceived during the term of employment and during a reasonable period of time after termination.", "date": "1984-02-22", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon#src-whites-holdover-dicta" }, { "id": "whites-holdover-not-enforced", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "White's Electronics, Inc. v. Teknetics, Inc.", "citation": "White's Electronics, Inc. v. Teknetics, Inc., 67 Or. App. 63, 677 P.2d 68 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1308336/whites-electronics-inc-v-teknetics-inc/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1308336/whites-electronics-inc-v-teknetics-inc/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20White%E2%80%99s%20required%20Payne,is%20fatal%20to%20its%20case.", "proposition": "White's Electronics shows the holdover endorsement is dicta — the employer had obtained such an agreement in the first stint of employment but not the second, and that failure was fatal to its post-employment claim, so no holdover clause was enforced.", "verbatimQuote": "In fact, White’s required Payne to sign such an agreement during his first period of employment. Its failure to obtain such an agreement the second time around is fatal to its case.", "date": "1984-02-22", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon#src-whites-holdover-not-enforced" }, { "id": "ors-noncompete-definition", "authorityType": "primary-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "ORS 653.295", "citation": "Or. Rev. Stat. § 653.295(8)(d) (2025).", "url": "https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors653.html", "proposition": "ORS 653.295(8)(d) defines a noncompetition agreement as a promise not to compete with the employer in providing similar products, processes or services after termination — a definition an invention-assignment clause does not fit, so trailing-assignment clauses sit outside the statute and default to common-law limits.", "verbatimQuote": "“Noncompetition agreement” means a written agreement between an employer and employee under which the employee agrees that the employee, either alone or as an employee of another person, will not compete with the employer in providing products, processes or services that are similar to the employer’s products, processes or services for a period of time or within a specified geographic area after termination of employment.", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon#src-ors-noncompete-definition" }, { "id": "eldridge-reasonableness", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Eldridge v. Johnston", "citation": "Eldridge v. Johnston, 195 Or. 379, 245 P.2d 239 (Or. 1952).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1361832/eldridge-v-johnston/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1361832/eldridge-v-johnston/#:~:text=Three%20things%20are%20essential%20to,the%20interests%20of%20the%20public.", "proposition": "Eldridge v. Johnston states the Oregon Supreme Court's three-part test for the validity of a partial restraint of trade — partial in time or place, supported by consideration, and reasonable — the framework a court would most likely apply to a post-employment trailing-assignment clause.", "verbatimQuote": "Three things are essential to the validity of a contract in restraint of trade: (1) it must be partial or restricted in its operation in respect either to time or place; (2) it must be on some good consideration; and (3) it must be reasonable, that is, it should afford only a fair protection to the interests of the party in whose favor it is made, and must not be so large in its operation as to interfere with the interests of the public.", "date": "1952-05-28", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon#src-eldridge-reasonableness" }, { "id": "mainland-employee-default-practice", "authorityType": "case-law", "tier": "primary-source-backed", "title": "Mainland Industries, Inc. v. Timberland Machines & Engineering Corp.", "citation": "Mainland Industries, Inc. v. Timberland Machines & Engineering Corp., 58 Or. App. 585, 649 P.2d 613 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1319588/mainland-industries-inc-v-timberland-machines-engineering-corp/", "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1319588/mainland-industries-inc-v-timberland-machines-engineering-corp/#:~:text=When%20the%20employment%20relationship%20is,to%20the%20employer%E2%80%99s%20product%20line.", "proposition": "Mainland Industries holds that in a general employment relationship the employee retains any patent the employee procures, even one relating to the employer's product line — so an Oregon employer's rights are only as good as the written assignment that transfers them.", "verbatimQuote": "When the employment relationship is general, an employe is entitled to retain any patent he procures, even though the patent relates to the employer’s product line.", "date": "1982-08-18", "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/oregon#src-mainland-employee-default-practice" } ] } ] } }