{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "invention-assignment",
    "state": "puerto-rico",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Puerto Rico",
      "description": "Puerto Rico — a civil-law jurisdiction governed by the Civil Code of 2020 — has no private-sector employee-invention statute, so an assignment clause is an ordinary Civil Code contract bounded by the federal patent overlay, not a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement. The only Puerto Rico employee-invention statute, 3 L.P.R.A. § 694a, covers Commonwealth research personnel only. Absent a written assignment the federal inventor-first default leaves ownership with the employee, and whether a post-employment holdover clause would face the strict Arthur Young non-compete doctrine or be treated as an ordinary title-allocation clause is unsettled.",
      "state": "Puerto Rico",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-03",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "bottomLine": "Puerto Rico — a civil-law jurisdiction governed by the Civil Code of 2020 — has no private-sector employee-invention statute (the only employee-invention statute, 3 L.P.R.A. § 694a, covers Commonwealth research personnel), so an assignment clause is an ordinary Civil Code contract bounded by the federal patent overlay rather than a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement; absent a written assignment the federal inventor-first default leaves ownership with the employee — no Puerto Rico employee-invention decision was found in our review — and whether a post-employment holdover clause would face the strict Arthur Young non-compete doctrine (twelve-month ceiling, consideration beyond continued employment, writing, total nullity without judicial narrowing) or be treated as an ordinary title-allocation clause is unsettled.",
        "keyLaw": "No Puerto Rico private-sector invention-assignment statute; Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III, 136 D.P.R. 157 (1994); Banks v. Unisys Corp., 228 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)",
        "statutoryCarveOut": "none",
        "defaultOwnership": "employee",
        "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a",
        "holdoverClauseLimit": "unsettled",
        "carveOutScope": "Puerto Rico has no statutory own-time carve-out for private-sector employees; the reach of an assignment clause is limited only by the Civil Code of 2020's general contract rules and public-order nullity (art. 342(d), 31 L.P.R.A. § 6312), the federal inventor-first default with its hired-to-invent and shop-right overlays, and the risk that a clause restraining post-employment work would be tested under the strict Arthur Young non-compete doctrine, which caps restraints at twelve months and voids noncompliant covenants entirely."
      },
      "about": [
        "Puerto Rico invention assignment",
        "Puerto Rico no invention-assignment statute",
        "Puerto Rico employee invention ownership",
        "Arthur Young v. Vega non-compete doctrine",
        "3 L.P.R.A. § 694a government employee inventions",
        "Puerto Rico Civil Code of 2020 invention assignment",
        "Puerto Rico 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 Puerto Rico employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "answerText": "There is no private-sector statutory ceiling. Puerto Rico — a civil-law jurisdiction governed by the Civil Code of 2020 — has no private-sector employee-invention statute: nothing in the Leyes de Puerto Rico or the Civil Code voids an assignment of a true own-time, own-resource invention. The only employee-invention statute on the books, 3 L.P.R.A. § 694a, covers research employees of the Commonwealth government, not private employers. An assignment clause is therefore an ordinary Civil Code contract operating against the federal patent-law baseline that rights in an invention start with the inventor.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "pr-694a-public-sector-only",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "3 L.P.R.A. § 694a",
            "citation": "3 L.P.R.A. § 694a (quoted from the English translation of the Laws of Puerto Rico).",
            "url": "https://law.justia.com/codes/puerto-rico/title-three/chapter-29/694a/",
            "deepLink": "https://law.justia.com/codes/puerto-rico/title-three/chapter-29/694a/#:~:text=shall%20be%20the%20exclusive%20property,the%20Commonwealth%20of%20Puerto%20Rico",
            "proposition": "3 L.P.R.A. § 694a — the only Puerto Rico employee-invention statute — supports the rule that inventions produced by Commonwealth research employees in the discharge of public employment are the exclusive property of the Commonwealth, with the employee share of any profits capped at one third; it is a public-sector ownership rule, not a private-sector carve-out. Quoted from the official English translation of the Laws of Puerto Rico.",
            "verbatimQuote": "shall be the exclusive property of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-pr-694a-public-sector-only"
          },
          {
            "id": "cc2020-art53-ip-governing-law",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "P.R. Civil Code of 2020, art. 53 (31 L.P.R.A. § 5415)",
            "citation": "Cód. Civ. P.R. art. 53, 31 L.P.R.A. § 5415 (2020).",
            "url": "https://bvirtualogp.pr.gov/ogp/Bvirtual/leyesreferencia/PDF/55-2020.pdf",
            "proposition": "Article 53 of the Civil Code of 2020 supports the rule that intellectual and industrial property rights are governed by the law in force in Puerto Rico — a one-sentence governing-law pointer, and the Code's only intellectual-property article, not a substantive employee-invention rule. Spanish original; the English rendering in the body is our translation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Los derechos de propiedad intelectual e industrial se rigen por la ley vigente en Puerto Rico.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-cc2020-art53-ip-governing-law"
          },
          {
            "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 Puerto Rico 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/puerto-rico#src-stanford-inventor-baseline"
          },
          {
            "id": "ley-55-2012-work-for-hire-no-moral-rights",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ley 55-2012 (Ley de Derechos Morales de Autor), art. 7 (31 L.P.R.A. § 1401o)",
            "citation": "Ley de Derechos Morales de Autor de Puerto Rico, Ley 55-2012, art. 7, 31 L.P.R.A. § 1401o.",
            "url": "https://bvirtualogp.pr.gov/ogp/Bvirtual/leyesreferencia/PDF/Propiedad%20Intelectual/55-2012.pdf",
            "proposition": "Article 7 of Puerto Rico's moral-rights act supports the rule that a work made for hire — including a work created by an employee in the regular course of duties — generates no moral rights unless a signed written agreement so provides. Spanish original; the English rendering in the body is our translation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "La obra creada como un “trabajo hecho por encargo” no genera derechos morales, excepto que así se disponga mediante acuerdo escrito y firmado.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-ley-55-2012-work-for-hire-no-moral-rights"
          },
          {
            "id": "ley-80-2011-employee-ndas",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Ley 80-2011 (Ley para la Protección de Secretos Comerciales e Industriales), 10 L.P.R.A. § 4133(c)",
            "citation": "Ley para la Protección de Secretos Comerciales e Industriales de Puerto Rico, Ley 80-2011, 10 L.P.R.A. § 4133(c).",
            "url": "https://bvirtualogp.pr.gov/ogp/Bvirtual/leyesreferencia/PDF/80-2011.pdf",
            "proposition": "Puerto Rico's trade-secrets act supports the rule that requiring employees who are authorized to access trade-secret information to sign confidentiality agreements is among the reasonable security measures that preserve trade-secret protection — the statutory backdrop for a PIIA's confidentiality clause, not an invention-ownership rule. Spanish original; the English rendering in the body is our translation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "requerir a los empleados de la empresa autorizados a acceder la información, el firmar acuerdos de confidencialidad",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-ley-80-2011-employee-ndas"
          },
          {
            "id": "friger-image-rights-written-transfer",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Friger Salgueiro v. Mech-Tech College, LLC",
            "citation": "Friger Salgueiro v. Mech-Tech College, LLC, 2026 TSPR 30, 218 DPR ___ (2026).",
            "url": "https://dts.poderjudicial.pr/ts/2026/2026tspr30.pdf",
            "proposition": "Friger Salgueiro v. Mech-Tech College holds that commercial image and publicity rights under Ley 139-2011 are transferable only through a written agreement or intestate succession, regardless of the employment or contractual relationship — so an assignment clause that wants an employee's likeness needs its own signed written grant. Spanish original; the English rendering in the body is our translation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "interpretamos que el derecho a la publicidad o los derechos sobre la propia imagen comerciales son transmisibles únicamente a través de un acuerdo escrito o mediante sucesión intestada, sin importar la relación laboral, contractual, o de otra naturaleza habida entre las partes.",
            "date": "2026-03-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-friger-image-rights-written-transfer"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "employee-notice",
        "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?",
        "heading": "Must a Puerto Rico employer notify the employee?",
        "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Puerto Rico has no private-sector 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 only Puerto Rico employee-invention statute is a public-sector ownership rule with no notice mechanism. What substitutes for a notice regime in practice is the Civil Code contract itself, read through Puerto Rico's employee-protective construction rules.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "pr-694a-no-notice-mechanism",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "3 L.P.R.A. § 694a",
            "citation": "3 L.P.R.A. § 694a (quoted from the English translation of the Laws of Puerto Rico).",
            "url": "https://law.justia.com/codes/puerto-rico/title-three/chapter-29/694a/",
            "deepLink": "https://law.justia.com/codes/puerto-rico/title-three/chapter-29/694a/#:~:text=shall%20be%20the%20exclusive%20property,the%20Commonwealth%20of%20Puerto%20Rico",
            "proposition": "3 L.P.R.A. § 694a supports the rule that Puerto Rico's only employee-invention statute is an ownership allocation for Commonwealth research personnel — it makes their inventions the Commonwealth's exclusive property and contains no §2872-style notice or disclosure formality that a private employer could owe an employee. Quoted from the official English translation of the Laws of Puerto Rico.",
            "verbatimQuote": "shall be the exclusive property of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-pr-694a-no-notice-mechanism"
          },
          {
            "id": "cherena-adhesion-weaker-party",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Cherena v. Coors Brewing Co.",
            "citation": "Cherena v. Coors Brewing Co., 20 F. Supp. 2d 282 (D.P.R. 1998).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2423610/cherena-v-coors-brewing-co/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2423610/cherena-v-coors-brewing-co/#:~:text=that%20any%20doubt%20in%20its,favor%20of%20the%20weaker%20party",
            "proposition": "Cherena v. Coors Brewing Co., applying Puerto Rico law, supports the rule that an employment contract is a typical adhesion contract and that any doubt in its interpretation is construed in favor of the weaker party — the construction rule that substitutes for a notice regime when a Puerto Rico employee challenges a broad assignment clause.",
            "verbatimQuote": "that any doubt in its interpretation should be construed in favor of the weaker party",
            "date": "1998-09-18",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-cherena-adhesion-weaker-party"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "default-ownership",
        "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?",
        "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Puerto Rico?",
        "answerText": "The employee-inventor, under federal patent law. Puerto Rico has no statute allocating private-sector employee inventions to either side, and no Puerto Rico Supreme Court, federal district court in Puerto Rico, or First Circuit decision on employee invention ownership was found in our review — so the field is governed entirely by the federal defaults: rights belong to the inventor, the employer may claim an invention only from an employee hired to invent, and the employer's fallback where its time and tools were used is a shop-right license, not title.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "stanford-inventor-default",
            "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 default that governs in Puerto Rico absent a written assignment.",
            "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/puerto-rico#src-stanford-inventor-default"
          },
          {
            "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 a Puerto Rico 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/puerto-rico#src-stanford-traceback"
          },
          {
            "id": "banks-inventor-general-rule",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Banks v. Unisys Corp.",
            "citation": "Banks v. Unisys Corp., 228 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2000).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/770700/gerald-banks-and-kelly-banks-v-unisys-corporation-and-burroughs/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/770700/gerald-banks-and-kelly-banks-v-unisys-corporation-and-burroughs/#:~:text=The%20general%20rule%20is%20that,may%20belong%20to%20the%20employer.",
            "proposition": "Banks v. Unisys Corp. states the Federal Circuit's general rule that an individual owns the patent rights to subject matter of which he is the inventor even when conceived in the course of employment, subject to two exceptions — an express contract to assign, and hiring to invent. Patent-ownership appeals from the federal district court in Puerto Rico go to the Federal Circuit, making this the operative appellate statement of the default.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The general rule is that an individual owns the patent rights to the subject matter of which he is an inventor, even though he conceived it or reduced it to practice in the course of his employment. There are two exceptions to this rule: first, an employer owns an employee’s invention if the employee is a party to an express contract to that effect; second, where an employee is hired to invent something or solve a particular problem, the property of the invention related to this effort may belong to the employer.",
            "date": "2000-09-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-banks-inventor-general-rule"
          },
          {
            "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, and supplies the shop-right doctrine — a non-exclusive license, not title — where the employer's time and tools were used.",
            "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/puerto-rico#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent"
          },
          {
            "id": "pr-694a-public-sector-inversion",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "3 L.P.R.A. § 694a",
            "citation": "3 L.P.R.A. § 694a (quoted from the English translation of the Laws of Puerto Rico).",
            "url": "https://law.justia.com/codes/puerto-rico/title-three/chapter-29/694a/",
            "deepLink": "https://law.justia.com/codes/puerto-rico/title-three/chapter-29/694a/#:~:text=which%20shall%20not%20be%20greater,of%20the%20profits%20or%20income",
            "proposition": "3 L.P.R.A. § 694a supports the rule that for Commonwealth research employees the default inverts — the government owns inventions produced in the discharge of public employment, and the employee's committee-set share of profits or income is capped at one third. Quoted from the official English translation of the Laws of Puerto Rico, which renders the fraction with internal spaces.",
            "verbatimQuote": "which shall not be greater than 33 1 / 3 percent of the profits or income",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-pr-694a-public-sector-inversion"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "holdover-clause-limit",
        "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in Puerto Rico?",
        "answerText": "Unsettled. No Puerto Rico decision found in our review decides whether a trailing clause reaching inventions first conceived after employment ends is enforceable, and there is no statutory cap because there is no private-sector invention statute at all. What Puerto Rico supplies instead is a strict judge-made non-compete doctrine — Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III — under which a restraint must be in writing, capped at twelve months, and supported by consideration beyond continued employment, on pain of total nullity with no judicial narrowing. Whether a holdover assignment would be recharacterized as such a restraint or treated as an ordinary title-allocation clause outside that doctrine is genuinely open.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "smarte-carte-five-elements",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Colón",
            "citation": "Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Colón, 47 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.P.R. 1999) (summarizing Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III, 136 D.P.R. 157 (1994)).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2527549/smarte-carte-inc-v-colon/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2527549/smarte-carte-inc-v-colon/#:~:text=The%20elements%20of%20a%20valid,covenants%20must%20be%20in%20writing.",
            "proposition": "Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Colón, applying Puerto Rico law, enumerates in English the five Arthur Young elements of a valid non-competition agreement — legitimate interest, scope fitted to the interest with a twelve-month maximum, consideration other than mere job tenure, contract validity, and a writing. The quote preserves the source's own internal spacing.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The elements of a valid non-competition agreement in Puerto Rico as set forth in Arthur Young are: (1.) The employer must have a legitimate interest in the agreement; (2.)the scope of the prohibition must fit the employer’s interest but not exceed twelve months; (3.) The employer shall offer a consideration in exchange for the employee signing the non-competition covenant other than mere job tenure; (4.) Non-competition agreements must be valid contracts; (5.) Non-competition covenants must be in writing.",
            "date": "1999-03-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-smarte-carte-five-elements"
          },
          {
            "id": "arthur-young-twelve-month-ceiling",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III",
            "citation": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III, 136 D.P.R. 157 (1994) (official English translation, P.R. Offic. Trans., 94 J.T.S. 75).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8588745/young-v-vega/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8588745/young-v-vega/#:~:text=El%20t%C3%A9rmino%20de%20no%20competencia,para%20proteger%20adecuadamente%20al%20patrono.",
            "proposition": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III holds that a non-compete term must not exceed twelve months, any additional time being excessive and unnecessary to adequately protect the employer — a hard ceiling, not a presumption. Spanish original; the English rendering in the body is our translation, and an official English translation exists.",
            "verbatimQuote": "El término de no competencia no debe excederse de doce (12) meses, entendiéndose que cualquier tiempo adicional es excesivo e innecesario para proteger adecuadamente al patrono.",
            "date": "1994-05-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-arthur-young-twelve-month-ceiling"
          },
          {
            "id": "arthur-young-mere-permanence-consideration",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III",
            "citation": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III, 136 D.P.R. 157 (1994) (official English translation, P.R. Offic. Trans., 94 J.T.S. 75).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8588745/young-v-vega/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8588745/young-v-vega/#:~:text=Sin%20embargo%2C%20no%20se%20admitir%C3%A1,mera%20permanencia%20en%20el%20empleo.",
            "proposition": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III holds that mere continuation in employment will not be accepted as consideration for a non-compete agreement — a mid-employment rollout needs fresh consideration. Spanish original; the English rendering in the body is our translation, and an official English translation exists.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Sin embargo, no se admitirá como causa del acuerdo de no competencia la mera permanencia en el empleo.",
            "date": "1994-05-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-arthur-young-mere-permanence-consideration"
          },
          {
            "id": "arthur-young-writing-required",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III",
            "citation": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III, 136 D.P.R. 157 (1994) (official English translation, P.R. Offic. Trans., 94 J.T.S. 75).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8588745/young-v-vega/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8588745/young-v-vega/#:~:text=Finalmente%2C%20es%20indispensable%20que%20los,no%20competencia%20consten%20por%20escrito.",
            "proposition": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III holds that it is indispensable that non-compete pacts be set down in writing. Spanish original; the English rendering in the body is our translation, and an official English translation exists.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Finalmente, es indispensable que los pactos de no competencia consten por escrito.",
            "date": "1994-05-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-arthur-young-writing-required"
          },
          {
            "id": "arthur-young-total-nullity",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III",
            "citation": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III, 136 D.P.R. 157 (1994) (official English translation, P.R. Offic. Trans., 94 J.T.S. 75).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8588745/young-v-vega/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8588745/young-v-vega/#:~:text=se%20declarar%C3%A1%20nulo%20todo%20pacto,cumpla%20con%20las%20condiciones%20anteriores.",
            "proposition": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III holds that every non-compete pact failing the court's conditions will be declared null in its entirety — the quoted fragment completes a sentence in which the court refuses to modify the parties' agreement to fit reasonable norms. Spanish original; the English rendering in the body is our translation, and an official English translation exists.",
            "verbatimQuote": "se declarará nulo todo pacto de no competir que no cumpla con las condiciones anteriores.",
            "date": "1994-05-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-arthur-young-total-nullity"
          },
          {
            "id": "smarte-carte-no-reasonableness-rewrite",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Colón",
            "citation": "Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Colón, 47 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.P.R. 1999).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2527549/smarte-carte-inc-v-colon/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2527549/smarte-carte-inc-v-colon/#:~:text=This%20invalidation%20is%20strictly%20enforced%2C,order%20to%20modify%20the%20provision.",
            "proposition": "Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Colón states that Puerto Rico's invalidation of noncompliant covenants is strictly enforced and that courts are instructed not to apply the common-law reasonableness rule to modify the provision — no blue-pencil, no reformation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This invalidation is strictly enforced, and courts are instructed not to apply the common law rule of reasonableness in order to modify the provision.",
            "date": "1999-03-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-smarte-carte-no-reasonableness-rewrite"
          },
          {
            "id": "smarte-carte-public-policy",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Colón",
            "citation": "Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Colón, 47 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.P.R. 1999) (quoting the official English translation of Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III, 136 D.P.R. 157 (1994)).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2527549/smarte-carte-inc-v-colon/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2527549/smarte-carte-inc-v-colon/#:~:text=violate%20contractual%20good%20faith%20but,general%20public%E2%80%99s%20freedom%20of%20choice.",
            "proposition": "Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Colón — quoting the official English translation of Arthur Young — states that noncompliant covenants violate not only contractual good faith but also public policy by excessively and unjustifiably restricting the employee's freedom of contract and the general public's freedom of choice; the freedom-of-contract framing is the hook through which a trailing assignment clause could be recharacterized as a restraint.",
            "verbatimQuote": "violate contractual good faith but also public policy, by excessively and unjustifiably restricting the employee’s freedom of contract and the general public’s freedom of choice.",
            "date": "1999-03-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-smarte-carte-public-policy"
          },
          {
            "id": "cc2020-art342d-public-order-nullity",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "P.R. Civil Code of 2020, art. 342(d) (31 L.P.R.A. § 6312)",
            "citation": "Cód. Civ. P.R. art. 342(d), 31 L.P.R.A. § 6312 (2020).",
            "url": "https://bvirtualogp.pr.gov/ogp/Bvirtual/leyesreferencia/PDF/55-2020.pdf",
            "proposition": "Article 342(d) of the Civil Code of 2020 supports the rule that a juridical act is null if it is contrary to imperative law, morals, or public order — the civilian nullity vehicle through which Arthur Young-noncompliant restraints fall. Spanish original; the English rendering in the body is our translation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "si es contrario a la ley imperativa, la moral o el orden público",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-cc2020-art342d-public-order-nullity"
          },
          {
            "id": "cc2020-art55g-employment-choice-of-law",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "P.R. Civil Code of 2020, art. 55(g) (31 L.P.R.A. § 5422)",
            "citation": "Cód. Civ. P.R. art. 55(g), 31 L.P.R.A. § 5422 (2020).",
            "url": "https://bvirtualogp.pr.gov/ogp/Bvirtual/leyesreferencia/PDF/55-2020.pdf",
            "proposition": "Article 55(g) of the Civil Code of 2020 supports the rule that employment contracts under which services are rendered mainly in Puerto Rico are governed by Puerto Rico law — the anchor that keeps a mainland choice-of-law clause from routing a Puerto Rico employee's covenant around local restraint doctrine. Spanish original; the English rendering in the body is our translation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "los contratos de empleo en los cuales los servicios son prestados principalmente en Puerto Rico, se rigen por la ley de Puerto Rico.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-cc2020-art55g-employment-choice-of-law"
          },
          {
            "id": "mcg-therapy-reaffirms-arthur-young",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "MCG Therapy Group, LLC v. Maestre Rivera",
            "citation": "MCG Therapy Group, LLC v. Maestre Rivera, 2026 TSPR 56, 218 DPR ___ (2026).",
            "url": "https://dts.poderjudicial.pr/ts/2026/2026tspr56.pdf",
            "proposition": "MCG Therapy Group v. Maestre Rivera — an independent-contractor professional-services case, not an employee case — validates the assignment of a contract carrying a non-compete with tacit consent by continued performance after notice, adopts a case-by-case reasonableness test for independent-contractor covenants, and reaffirms Arthur Young as the governing employee-context rule. Spanish original; the English rendering in the body is our translation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Por considerar que la cesión de contratos es compatible con nuestro ordenamiento, resolvemos que los acuerdos de no competencia son válidos, siempre que las restricciones temporales, geográficas y materiales resulten razonables, protejan los intereses legítimos del contratante y no impongan cargas desproporcionadas al profesional ni afecten el interés público.",
            "date": "2026-05-28",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-mcg-therapy-reaffirms-arthur-young"
          },
          {
            "id": "cherena-real-need-limit",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Cherena v. Coors Brewing Co.",
            "citation": "Cherena v. Coors Brewing Co., 20 F. Supp. 2d 282 (D.P.R. 1998).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2423610/cherena-v-coors-brewing-co/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2423610/cherena-v-coors-brewing-co/#:~:text=and%20that%2C%20in%20the%20case,protect%20the%20company%20from%20competition.",
            "proposition": "Cherena v. Coors Brewing Co., applying Puerto Rico law, recognizes that in the case of a non-competition clause or contract a company is barred from imposing restrictions that exceed the real need to protect the company from competition — the construction limit an aggressive holdover clause would face even outside the Arthur Young framework.",
            "verbatimQuote": "and that, in the case of a non-competition clause or contract, a company is barred from imposing restrictions that exceed the real need to protect the company from competition.",
            "date": "1998-09-18",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-cherena-real-need-limit"
          },
          {
            "id": "arthur-young-mere-permanence-consideration-practice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III",
            "citation": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III, 136 D.P.R. 157 (1994) (official English translation, P.R. Offic. Trans., 94 J.T.S. 75).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8588745/young-v-vega/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8588745/young-v-vega/#:~:text=Sin%20embargo%2C%20no%20se%20admitir%C3%A1,mera%20permanencia%20en%20el%20empleo.",
            "proposition": "Arthur Young & Co. v. Vega III holds that mere continuation in employment will not be accepted as consideration for a non-compete agreement — a mid-employment rollout needs fresh consideration. Spanish original; the English rendering in the body is our translation, and an official English translation exists.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Sin embargo, no se admitirá como causa del acuerdo de no competencia la mera permanencia en el empleo.",
            "date": "1994-05-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-arthur-young-mere-permanence-consideration-practice"
          },
          {
            "id": "smarte-carte-no-reasonableness-rewrite-practice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Colón",
            "citation": "Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Colón, 47 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.P.R. 1999).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2527549/smarte-carte-inc-v-colon/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2527549/smarte-carte-inc-v-colon/#:~:text=This%20invalidation%20is%20strictly%20enforced%2C,order%20to%20modify%20the%20provision.",
            "proposition": "Smarte Carte, Inc. v. Colón states that Puerto Rico's invalidation of noncompliant covenants is strictly enforced and that courts are instructed not to apply the common-law reasonableness rule to modify the provision — no blue-pencil, no reformation.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This invalidation is strictly enforced, and courts are instructed not to apply the common law rule of reasonableness in order to modify the provision.",
            "date": "1999-03-19",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/puerto-rico#src-smarte-carte-no-reasonableness-rewrite-practice"
          },
          {
            "id": "stanford-traceback-practice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems",
            "citation": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20although%20others%20may%20acquire,trace%20back%20to%20the%20inventor.",
            "proposition": "Stanford v. Roche holds that although others may acquire an interest in an invention, that interest as a general rule must trace back to the inventor — so a Puerto Rico 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/puerto-rico#src-stanford-traceback-practice"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}