{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "invention-assignment",
    "state": "south-carolina",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in South Carolina",
      "description": "South Carolina has no employee-invention-assignment statute, but it is one of the few states with a direct holding on trailing clauses — in Milliken & Co. v. Morin the South Carolina Supreme Court held that invention-assignment and confidentiality clauses are not restraints of trade and are not strictly construed in favor of the employee, and it upheld a one-year post-employment holdover clause as eminently reasonable. Absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent, and a clause broad enough to function as a noncompete falls back into the strict common-law covenant regime, where South Carolina courts refuse to blue-pencil.",
      "state": "South Carolina",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "bottomLine": "South Carolina has no employee-invention-assignment statute, but it is one of the few states with a direct holding on trailing clauses — in Milliken & Co. v. Morin the South Carolina Supreme Court held invention-assignment and confidentiality clauses are not restraints of trade and are not strictly construed in favor of the employee, and it upheld a one-year post-employment holdover clause as eminently reasonable; absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent, and a clause broad enough to function as a noncompete falls back into the strict common-law covenant regime, where courts refuse to blue-pencil.",
        "keyLaw": "No South Carolina invention-assignment statute; Milliken & Co. v. Morin, 399 S.C. 23, 731 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2012); Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)",
        "statutoryCarveOut": "none",
        "defaultOwnership": "employee",
        "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a",
        "holdoverClauseLimit": "reasonablenessOnly",
        "carveOutScope": "South Carolina has no statutory own-time carve-out; an assignment clause is instead policed by the general reasonableness standard of Milliken & Co. v. Morin, 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 — with reclassification into the strict noncompete regime if the clause functions as a noncompete."
      },
      "about": [
        "South Carolina invention assignment",
        "South Carolina no invention-assignment statute",
        "South Carolina employee invention ownership",
        "Milliken & Co. v. Morin",
        "South Carolina holdover trailing assignment",
        "South Carolina hired to invent",
        "South Carolina shop right"
      ],
      "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 South Carolina employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling, and — unusually — there is a direct state-supreme-court answer on what governs instead. South Carolina has no employee-invention-assignment statute of any kind, so nothing like a California-style own-time carve-out limits what an assignment clause may reach. In Milliken & Co. v. Morin, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that invention-assignment and confidentiality clauses are not restraints of trade and are not strictly construed in favor of the employee; they are tested under a general reasonableness standard.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "milliken-clauses-not-restraints",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin",
            "citation": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin, 399 S.C. 23, 731 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/#:~:text=We%20therefore%20hold%20confidentiality%20and,in%20favor%20of%20the%20employee.",
            "proposition": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin holds that confidentiality and invention-assignment clauses are not in restraint of trade and are not strictly construed in favor of the employee, so no statutory or strict-construction ceiling limits what a South Carolina assignment clause may reach.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We therefore hold confidentiality and invention assignment clauses are not in restraint of trade and should not be strictly construed in favor of the employee.",
            "date": "2012-08-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-milliken-clauses-not-restraints"
          },
          {
            "id": "milliken-vests-ownership",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin",
            "citation": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin, 399 S.C. 23, 731 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20they%20do%20not%20operate,which%20ought%20to%20have%20it.",
            "proposition": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin reasons that invention-assignment clauses do not restrain the employee's trade but merely allocate ownership of an invention, the premise for exempting them from strict noncompete scrutiny.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Thus, they do not operate in restraint of the employee’s trade but merely vest ownership of an invention with the entity which ought to have it.",
            "date": "2012-08-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-milliken-vests-ownership"
          },
          {
            "id": "rental-uniform-strict-construction",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Rental Uniform Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley",
            "citation": "Rental Uniform Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley, 278 S.C. 674, 301 S.E.2d 142 (S.C. 1983).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1330075/rental-uniform-service-of-florence-inc-v-dudley/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1330075/rental-uniform-service-of-florence-inc-v-dudley/#:~:text=Restrictive%20covenants%20not%20to%20compete,strictly%20construed%20against%20the%20employer.",
            "proposition": "Rental Uniform Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley states the strict South Carolina backdrop rule that covenants not to compete are disfavored and strictly construed against the employer — the regime Milliken exempts invention-assignment clauses from.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Restrictive covenants not to compete are generally disfavored and will be strictly construed against the employer.",
            "date": "1983-03-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-rental-uniform-strict-construction"
          },
          {
            "id": "scutsa-trade-secret-duty",
            "authorityType": "primary-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "South Carolina Trade Secrets Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 39-8-30(B)",
            "citation": "S.C. Code Ann. § 39-8-30(B).",
            "enactedCitation": "S.C. Code Ann. § 39-8-30(B)",
            "url": "https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t39c008.php",
            "proposition": "S.C. Code Ann. § 39-8-30(B) imposes a trade-secret nondisclosure duty on every employee independently of any contract — a statutory secrecy floor adjacent to invention assignment, not a statute limiting assignment clauses.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Every employee who is informed of or should reasonably have known from the circumstances of the existence of any employer's trade secret has a duty to refrain from using or disclosing the trade secret without the employer's permission independently of and in addition to any written contract of employment, secrecy agreement, noncompete agreement, nondisclosure agreement, or other agreement between the employer and the employee.",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-scutsa-trade-secret-duty"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "employee-notice",
        "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?",
        "heading": "Must a South Carolina employer notify the employee?",
        "answerText": "Not applicable. Because South Carolina 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 notice paragraph that appears in the leading South Carolina case was a term of the contract itself — a voluntary narrowing device, not a statutory prerequisite.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "milliken-contract-notice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin",
            "citation": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin, 399 S.C. 23, 731 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/#:~:text=This%20is%20to%20notify%20you,performed%20by%20you%20for%20Milliken.",
            "proposition": "The agreement upheld in Milliken & Co. v. Morin contained a contractual NOTICE paragraph excluding own-time, no-employer-resources inventions lacking a business or work nexus — a voluntary contract term, not a statutory notice requirement, since South Carolina has no invention-assignment statute.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This is to notify you that paragraph A of this Milliken “Associate Agreement” you are being asked to sign as a condition of your employment does not apply to an Invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility or proprietary information of Milliken was used and which was developed entirely on your own time, and (1) which does not relate (a) directly to the business of Milliken or (b) to Milliken’s actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (2) which does not result from any work performed by you for Milliken.",
            "date": "2012-08-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-milliken-contract-notice"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "default-ownership",
        "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?",
        "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in South Carolina?",
        "answerText": "The inventor, unless hired to invent. No South Carolina statute addresses default invention ownership, and no South Carolina appellate decision found in our review articulates the hired-to-invent or shop-right doctrines — so the default comes from the federal common-law baseline: rights in an invention belong to the employee who conceived it, with a narrow exception for the employee hired to invent.",
        "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/south-carolina#src-stanford-inventor"
          },
          {
            "id": "stanford-traceback",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems",
            "citation": "Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/218133/board-of-trustees-of-the-leland-stanford-junior-university-v-roche/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20although%20others%20may%20acquire,trace%20back%20to%20the%20inventor.",
            "proposition": "Stanford v. Roche holds that although others may acquire an interest in an invention, that interest as a general rule must trace back to the inventor — so an employer takes title only through an assignment from the employee-inventor.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Thus, although others may acquire an interest in an invention, any such interest — as a general rule — must trace back to the inventor.",
            "date": "2011-06-06",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-stanford-traceback"
          },
          {
            "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/south-carolina#src-dubilier-hired-to-invent"
          },
          {
            "id": "milliken-present-assignment",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin",
            "citation": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin, 399 S.C. 23, 731 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/#:~:text=Assign%20(and%20I%20do%20hereby,such%20Inventions%20in%20all%20countries.",
            "proposition": "The agreement upheld in Milliken & Co. v. Morin used present-assignment wording — assign (and I do hereby assign) — illustrating the drafting that passes title automatically, since Milliken reviews an express clause rather than deciding default ownership.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Assign (and I do hereby assign) to Milliken all of my rights to such Inventions, and to applications for letters patent, copyright registrations and/or mask work registrations in all countries and to letters patent, copyright registrations and/or mask work registrations granted upon such Inventions in all countries.",
            "date": "2012-08-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-milliken-present-assignment"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "holdover-clause-limit",
        "label": "Are post-employment trailing-assignment clauses enforceable?",
        "heading": "Are trailing-assignment (holdover) clauses enforceable in South Carolina?",
        "answerText": "Yes, when reasonable — and South Carolina is one of the few states where that answer rests on a direct holding rather than analogy. In Milliken & Co. v. Morin, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld a clause assigning inventions conceived within one year after termination, calling the one-year holdover eminently reasonable, and reviewed it under a general reasonableness standard rather than strict noncompete scrutiny. The limit is functional: a trailing clause broad enough to operate as a noncompete is tested as one, and South Carolina courts will not blue-pencil it.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "milliken-holdover-reasonable",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin",
            "citation": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin, 399 S.C. 23, 731 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/#:~:text=Moreover%2C%20the%20one%2Dyear%20holdover%20provision%20is%20eminently%20reasonable.",
            "proposition": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin upholds a one-year post-employment holdover invention-assignment provision as eminently reasonable — a direct South Carolina Supreme Court holding on trailing-clause enforceability.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Moreover, the one-year holdover provision is eminently reasonable.",
            "date": "2012-08-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-milliken-holdover-reasonable"
          },
          {
            "id": "milliken-reasonableness-balance",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin",
            "citation": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin, 399 S.C. 23, 731 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/#:~:text=these%20agreements%20are%20designed%20to,employment%20in%20his%20chosen%20field.",
            "proposition": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin frames invention-assignment review as a balance between the employer's interest in its proprietary information and the employee's ability to find gainful employment — the general reasonableness standard that replaces strict noncompete scrutiny.",
            "verbatimQuote": "these agreements are designed to strike an appropriate balance between protecting an employer’s valuable interest in its proprietary information and permitting an employee to find gainful employment in his chosen field.",
            "date": "2012-08-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-milliken-reasonableness-balance"
          },
          {
            "id": "rental-uniform-five-factor-head",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Rental Uniform Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley",
            "citation": "Rental Uniform Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley, 278 S.C. 674, 301 S.E.2d 142 (S.C. 1983).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1330075/rental-uniform-service-of-florence-inc-v-dudley/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1330075/rental-uniform-service-of-florence-inc-v-dudley/#:~:text=An%20agreement%E2%80%99s%20enforceability%20depends%20on,reasonable%20from%20the%20standpoint%20of",
            "proposition": "Rental Uniform Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley, restating Sermons v. Caine & Estes Insurance Agency, opens South Carolina's five-factor covenant test — necessity, time-and-place limits, hardship, public policy, and consideration — the strict regime a trailing clause re-enters if it functions as a noncompete.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An agreement’s enforceability depends on whether it is necessary for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, is reasonably limited in its operation with respect to time and place, is not unduly harsh and oppressive in curtailing the legitimate efforts of the employee to earn a livelihood, is reasonable from the standpoint of",
            "date": "1983-03-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-rental-uniform-five-factor-head"
          },
          {
            "id": "rental-uniform-five-factor-tail",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Rental Uniform Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley",
            "citation": "Rental Uniform Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley, 278 S.C. 674, 301 S.E.2d 142 (S.C. 1983).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1330075/rental-uniform-service-of-florence-inc-v-dudley/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1330075/rental-uniform-service-of-florence-inc-v-dudley/#:~:text=sound%20public%20policy%2C%20and%20is,supported%20by%20a%20valuable%20consideration.",
            "proposition": "Rental Uniform Serv. of Florence, Inc. v. Dudley closes the five-factor covenant test with the public-policy and consideration factors; the sentence spans a reporter page break, so the test is carded in two contiguous parts.",
            "verbatimQuote": "sound public policy, and is supported by a valuable consideration.",
            "date": "1983-03-17",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-rental-uniform-five-factor-tail"
          },
          {
            "id": "poynter-no-blue-pencil",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Poynter Investments, Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc.",
            "citation": "Poynter Invs., Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc., 387 S.C. 583, 694 S.E.2d 15 (S.C. 2010).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1316178/poynter-investments-inc-v-century-builders-of-piedmont-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1316178/poynter-investments-inc-v-century-builders-of-piedmont-inc/#:~:text=These%20cases%20stand%20for%20the,fall%20on%20their%20own%20terms.",
            "proposition": "Poynter Investments, Inc. v. Century Builders of Piedmont, Inc. holds that South Carolina courts cannot rewrite the restrictions in a noncompete clause, which must stand or fall on their own terms — so an assignment clause reclassified as a noncompete falls entirely rather than being narrowed.",
            "verbatimQuote": "These cases stand for the proposition that, in South Carolina, the restrictions in a non-compete clause cannot be rewritten by a court or limited by the parties’ agreement, but must stand or fall on their own terms.",
            "date": "2010-05-24",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-poynter-no-blue-pencil"
          },
          {
            "id": "fay-functional-noncompete",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC",
            "citation": "Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, 419 S.C. 622, 799 S.E.2d 318 (S.C. Ct. App. 2017).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8328279/fay-v-total-quality-logistics-llc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8328279/fay-v-total-quality-logistics-llc/#:~:text=We%20agree%20with%20Fay%20and,public%20policy%20of%20South%20Carolina.",
            "proposition": "Fay v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC holds that nondisclosure provisions lacking a reasonable time restriction operated as noncompete provisions and violated South Carolina public policy — the functional-reclassification limit on Milliken's friendlier standard.",
            "verbatimQuote": "We agree with Fay and reverse the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to TQL because the nondisclosure provisions operated as noncompete provisions and did not contain a reasonable time restriction, which violated the public policy of South Carolina.",
            "date": "2017-03-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-fay-functional-noncompete"
          },
          {
            "id": "milliken-contract-notice-practice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin",
            "citation": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin, 399 S.C. 23, 731 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/#:~:text=This%20is%20to%20notify%20you,performed%20by%20you%20for%20Milliken.",
            "proposition": "The agreement upheld in Milliken & Co. v. Morin carried a contractual NOTICE excluding own-time, no-employer-resources inventions lacking a business or work nexus — the self-imposed narrowing that kept the clause within the reasonableness safe harbor.",
            "verbatimQuote": "This is to notify you that paragraph A of this Milliken “Associate Agreement” you are being asked to sign as a condition of your employment does not apply to an Invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility or proprietary information of Milliken was used and which was developed entirely on your own time, and (1) which does not relate (a) directly to the business of Milliken or (b) to Milliken’s actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (2) which does not result from any work performed by you for Milliken.",
            "date": "2012-08-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-milliken-contract-notice-practice"
          },
          {
            "id": "milliken-present-assignment-practice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin",
            "citation": "Milliken & Co. v. Morin, 399 S.C. 23, 731 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2012).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8327160/milliken-co-v-morin/#:~:text=Assign%20(and%20I%20do%20hereby,such%20Inventions%20in%20all%20countries.",
            "proposition": "The clause upheld in Milliken & Co. v. Morin used present-assignment wording — assign (and I do hereby assign) — so title passed automatically, the drafting pattern to preserve in a South Carolina holdover clause.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Assign (and I do hereby assign) to Milliken all of my rights to such Inventions, and to applications for letters patent, copyright registrations and/or mask work registrations in all countries and to letters patent, copyright registrations and/or mask work registrations granted upon such Inventions in all countries.",
            "date": "2012-08-01",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/south-carolina#src-milliken-present-assignment-practice"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}