{
  "type": "practice-guide",
  "canonical": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/tennessee",
  "links": [
    {
      "rel": "self",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/tennessee.json",
      "type": "application/json"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/tennessee",
      "type": "text/html"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/tennessee/markdown",
      "type": "text/markdown"
    },
    {
      "rel": "alternate",
      "href": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/tennessee/json",
      "type": "application/json"
    }
  ],
  "data": {
    "topic": "invention-assignment",
    "state": "tennessee",
    "frontmatter": {
      "title": "Employee Invention Assignment in Tennessee",
      "description": "Tennessee 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 and copyright overlay — not a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement. Absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent; the closest Tennessee-linked authority shows Tennessee courts enforcing broad written assignment clauses as contracts, and a post-employment holdover clause would most likely be tested under Tennessee's restrictive-covenant reasonableness doctrine — now reinforced, for noncompetes, by the 2026 statute at T.C.A. §§ 50-1-210 and 50-1-211.",
      "state": "Tennessee",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-02",
      "license": "CC BY 4.0",
      "authors": [
        "steven-obiajulu"
      ],
      "summary": {
        "bottomLine": "Tennessee 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 and copyright overlay — not a California-style own-time carve-out or notice requirement; absent a written assignment the inventor owns unless hired to invent, Tennessee courts enforce written assignment clauses as contracts, and a post-employment holdover clause — on which no Tennessee case was found in our review — would most likely be tested by analogy under Tennessee's restrictive-covenant reasonableness doctrine, against the backdrop of the 2026 noncompete statute (T.C.A. §§ 50-1-210 and 50-1-211, effective July 1, 2026), which is silent on invention assignment.",
        "keyLaw": "No Tennessee invention-assignment statute; Stanford v. Roche, 563 U.S. 776 (2011); Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. 1984)",
        "statutoryCarveOut": "none",
        "defaultOwnership": "employee",
        "employeeNoticeRequired": "n/a",
        "holdoverClauseLimit": "unsettled",
        "carveOutScope": "Tennessee has no statutory own-time carve-out; the reach of an assignment clause is limited only by ordinary contract law, the federal inventor-owns default (subject to the hired-to-invent exception and the employer's shop right), and the federal patent and copyright overlay. The 2026 noncompete statute (T.C.A. §§ 50-1-210 and 50-1-211) regulates noncompete agreements, not invention assignment."
      },
      "about": [
        "Tennessee invention assignment",
        "Tennessee no invention-assignment statute",
        "Tennessee employee invention ownership",
        "Tennessee hired to invent",
        "Tennessee shop right",
        "Tennessee holdover trailing assignment",
        "Tennessee noncompete statute 2026",
        "T.C.A. § 50-1-211 seventy-thousand-dollar threshold"
      ],
      "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 Tennessee employer require assignment of every invention?",
        "answerText": "There is no statutory ceiling. Unlike California or New York, Tennessee 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 federal inventor-owns default, and the federal patent and copyright overlay. The baseline the contract operates against is that rights in an invention belong to the inventor, and the closest Tennessee-linked authority shows Tennessee courts enforcing a broad written assignment clause as a matter of contract.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "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 Tennessee 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/tennessee#src-stanford-inventor-baseline"
          },
          {
            "id": "dyer-assignment-enforced",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Dyer v. Intera Corp.",
            "citation": "Dyer v. Intera Corp., 870 F.2d 1063 (6th Cir. 1989).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/520330/michael-earl-dyer-v-intera-corporation-intera-company-ltd-and-tennessee/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/520330/michael-earl-dyer-v-intera-corporation-intera-company-ltd-and-tennessee/#:~:text=The%20agreement%20provided%20that%20all,solely%20the%20property%20of%20Intera.",
            "proposition": "Dyer v. Intera Corp. recounts Tennessee chancery proceedings enforcing a written invention-assignment agreement that reached all inventions made during employment — the closest Tennessee-linked authority showing Tennessee courts enforce broad written assignment clauses as contracts.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The agreement provided that all inventions, discoveries, and improvements made by Dyer during his employment, dating back to his first day at work, were to become solely the property of Intera.",
            "date": "1989-03-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/tennessee#src-dyer-assignment-enforced"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "employee-notice",
        "label": "Must the employer give the employee written notice of the carve-out?",
        "heading": "Must a Tennessee employer notify the employee?",
        "answerText": "Not applicable. Because Tennessee 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). What Tennessee enforces instead is contractual: disclosure and assignment duties arise from the terms of the agreement itself, and Tennessee courts enforce those terms as written.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "dyer-contract-duties",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Dyer v. Intera Corp.",
            "citation": "Dyer v. Intera Corp., 870 F.2d 1063 (6th Cir. 1989).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/520330/michael-earl-dyer-v-intera-corporation-intera-company-ltd-and-tennessee/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/520330/michael-earl-dyer-v-intera-corporation-intera-company-ltd-and-tennessee/#:~:text=The%20agreement%20provided%20that%20all,solely%20the%20property%20of%20Intera.",
            "proposition": "Dyer v. Intera Corp. shows that in Tennessee an employee's invention-disclosure and assignment duties arise from the terms of the written agreement itself, which the Tennessee chancery court enforced as drafted — there is no statutory notice or disclosure formality.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The agreement provided that all inventions, discoveries, and improvements made by Dyer during his employment, dating back to his first day at work, were to become solely the property of Intera.",
            "date": "1989-03-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/tennessee#src-dyer-contract-duties"
          }
        ]
      },
      {
        "slug": "default-ownership",
        "label": "Absent a written assignment, who owns the invention?",
        "heading": "Who owns an invention by default in Tennessee?",
        "answerText": "The inventor, unless hired to invent. Absent a written assignment, the baseline under federal patent law — which governs who holds title to a patentable invention in Tennessee as elsewhere — is that rights belong to the employee who conceived it. The narrow exception is the employee hired to invent, whose resulting invention the employer may claim.",
        "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.",
            "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/tennessee#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 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/tennessee#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/tennessee#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 Tennessee?",
        "answerText": "Probably yes if reasonable, but no Tennessee case decides the point. No Tennessee decision found in our review squarely addresses a trailing clause reaching inventions first conceived after employment ends, and there is no statutory temporal cap because there is no invention-assignment statute at all. What Tennessee does have is a well-developed restrictive-covenant reasonableness doctrine — covenants restraining a former employee are disfavored and enforced only to protect a legitimate interest beyond ordinary competition — and a Tennessee court would most likely test a holdover assignment by analogy under that doctrine rather than any invention-specific rule.",
        "sources": [
          {
            "id": "hasty-ordinary-competition",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc.",
            "citation": "Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. 1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2366827/hasty-v-rent-a-driver-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2366827/hasty-v-rent-a-driver-inc/#:~:text=An%20employer%2C%20however%2C%20cannot%20by%20contract%20restrain%20ordinary%20competition.",
            "proposition": "Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver states Tennessee's rule that an employer cannot by contract restrain ordinary competition — the doctrine a Tennessee court would most likely apply by analogy to a post-employment trailing-assignment clause.",
            "verbatimQuote": "An employer, however, cannot by contract restrain ordinary competition.",
            "date": "1984-05-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/tennessee#src-hasty-ordinary-competition"
          },
          {
            "id": "hasty-special-facts",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc.",
            "citation": "Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver, Inc., 671 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn. 1984).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2366827/hasty-v-rent-a-driver-inc/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2366827/hasty-v-rent-a-driver-inc/#:~:text=In%20order%20for%20an%20employer,over%20and%20above%20ordinary%20competition.",
            "proposition": "Hasty v. Rent-A-Driver requires special facts over and above ordinary competition before an employer is entitled to enforce a restraint against a former employee.",
            "verbatimQuote": "In order for an employer to be entitled to protection, there must be special facts present over and above ordinary competition.",
            "date": "1984-05-29",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/tennessee#src-hasty-special-facts"
          },
          {
            "id": "allright-reasonableness-factors",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. Berry",
            "citation": "Allright Auto Parks, Inc. v. Berry, 409 S.W.2d 361 (Tenn. 1966).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1784276/allright-auto-parks-inc-v-berry/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1784276/allright-auto-parks-inc-v-berry/#:~:text=Among%20these%20are%3A%20the%20consideration,be%20inimical%20to%20public%20interest.",
            "proposition": "Allright Auto Parks v. Berry supplies Tennessee's multi-factor reasonableness test for restraints — consideration, threatened danger to the employer, economic hardship on the employee, and the public interest — the framework a court would most likely borrow for an invention-holdover clause.",
            "verbatimQuote": "Among these are: the consideration supporting the agreements; the threatened danger to the employer in the absence of such an agreement; the economic hardship imposed on the employee by such a covenant; and whether or not such a covenant should be inimical to public interest.",
            "date": "1966-11-14",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/tennessee#src-allright-reasonableness-factors"
          },
          {
            "id": "dyer-assignment-enforced-practice",
            "authorityType": "case-law",
            "tier": "primary-source-backed",
            "title": "Dyer v. Intera Corp.",
            "citation": "Dyer v. Intera Corp., 870 F.2d 1063 (6th Cir. 1989).",
            "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/520330/michael-earl-dyer-v-intera-corporation-intera-company-ltd-and-tennessee/",
            "deepLink": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/520330/michael-earl-dyer-v-intera-corporation-intera-company-ltd-and-tennessee/#:~:text=The%20agreement%20provided%20that%20all,solely%20the%20property%20of%20Intera.",
            "proposition": "Dyer v. Intera Corp. recounts Tennessee chancery proceedings enforcing a written invention-assignment agreement that reached all inventions made during employment — the closest Tennessee-linked authority showing Tennessee courts enforce broad written assignment clauses as contracts.",
            "verbatimQuote": "The agreement provided that all inventions, discoveries, and improvements made by Dyer during his employment, dating back to his first day at work, were to become solely the property of Intera.",
            "date": "1989-03-20",
            "anchor": "https://openagreements.org/practice-guides/invention-assignment/us/tennessee#src-dyer-assignment-enforced-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 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/tennessee#src-stanford-traceback-practice"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}