Technology: Ensuring ownership of contractor-created technology and other works
Companies are making ever-greater use of third-party contractors to assist in the development of proprietary technology and processes.
February 08, 2013 at 01:10 AM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Companies are making ever-greater use of third-party contractors to assist in the development of proprietary technology and processes. By using third-party contractors rather than employees, companies hope to save money, gain flexibility in managing resources and spend more time on core business operations. In most cases, a company engaging contractors wishes to own the work product those contractors create. Yet enterprises need to take certain precise steps to ensure that they obtain the desired intellectual property rights in such work product.
Generally speaking, copyrights, patents and trade secrets are the three principle types of intellectual property rights that companies are most often concerned about when engaging third-party contractors for technology and process developments. There are differences in each of these rights, and companies may need to take different steps to convey ownership in such rights.
Copyrights
In the U.S., copyright is a creature of federal law. The U.S. Copyright Act grants copyright protection in “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” Software is an example of technology that qualifies for copyright protection.
As a general rule, the author of a work owns the copyright in a work. There is an exception to this rule for “works made for hire.” Works made for hire essentially fit into two categories:
- Works prepared by an employee (which are owned by an employer)
- Works “specially ordered or commissioned” by the engaging party and that meet certain statutorily defined characteristics (which are owned by the engaging party)
In many cases, technology deliverables that contractors create will not fit within the definition of “works made for hire.”
Fortunately, even if the contractor-created work is not a work made for hire, the copyright in such work can still be transferred by a written assignment document that the copyright holder signs.
A few things should be noted though in connection with copyright assignment documents:
- Use clear descriptions. The engaging party should not simply describe contractor-created works as “works made for hire.” Recent case law has shown that such a description is not sufficient to convey ownership if the deliverable that the contractor created does not fit within the statutory definition of a “work made for hire.”
- Contractors can cancel assignments. If an item is not a work made for hire, the author of the work (such as an individual contractor) can, in certain instances, cancel any copyright assignments of such works within a five-year window of time that can commence as early as the 35th year after the copyright assignment.
- Employees/contractors of contractor. Companies should ensure that their contracting and consulting firms have proper copyright assignment contracts and processes in place for their own contractors and employees.
Patents
Subject to certain qualifications, under U.S. patent law inventors can obtain patents on any “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, compositions of matter … or improvement.” Generally speaking, the patent right initially belongs to the inventor (i.e., the natural person who developed the invention). Inventors can assign their patent rights provided they execute a clear written assignment instrument.
If a company engages a contractor to develop an invention, the company should ensure that it has a written agreement with the contractor in which the contractor:
- Is required to promptly disclose any inventions
- Assigns all the patent rights in such inventions
- Agrees to cooperate with the company in connection with the registration and perfection of patent rights
Trade secrets
Trade Secrets are a type of intellectual property that state law protects. Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which most states have adopted, a trade secret is “information”—including a formula, program, method, technique or process—that is valuable because it is not generally known and is maintained in secret. A company should ensure that its contractor agreements require the contractor to both convey any trade secret rights the contractor may have in his work and not disclose any of the company's proprietary information, inventions and processes to third parties.
Foreign contractors
Given the increasing use of foreign-based contractors to provide critical technology development services for U.S. business, a company should also take reasonable steps to ensure that foreign-based contractors are complying with local legal requirements when conveying ownership in technology and other deliverables.
Companies are making ever-greater use of third-party contractors to assist in the development of proprietary technology and processes. By using third-party contractors rather than employees, companies hope to save money, gain flexibility in managing resources and spend more time on core business operations. In most cases, a company engaging contractors wishes to own the work product those contractors create. Yet enterprises need to take certain precise steps to ensure that they obtain the desired intellectual property rights in such work product.
Generally speaking, copyrights, patents and trade secrets are the three principle types of intellectual property rights that companies are most often concerned about when engaging third-party contractors for technology and process developments. There are differences in each of these rights, and companies may need to take different steps to convey ownership in such rights.
Copyrights
In the U.S., copyright is a creature of federal law. The U.S. Copyright Act grants copyright protection in “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” Software is an example of technology that qualifies for copyright protection.
As a general rule, the author of a work owns the copyright in a work. There is an exception to this rule for “works made for hire.” Works made for hire essentially fit into two categories:
- Works prepared by an employee (which are owned by an employer)
- Works “specially ordered or commissioned” by the engaging party and that meet certain statutorily defined characteristics (which are owned by the engaging party)
In many cases, technology deliverables that contractors create will not fit within the definition of “works made for hire.”
Fortunately, even if the contractor-created work is not a work made for hire, the copyright in such work can still be transferred by a written assignment document that the copyright holder signs.
A few things should be noted though in connection with copyright assignment documents:
- Use clear descriptions. The engaging party should not simply describe contractor-created works as “works made for hire.” Recent case law has shown that such a description is not sufficient to convey ownership if the deliverable that the contractor created does not fit within the statutory definition of a “work made for hire.”
- Contractors can cancel assignments. If an item is not a work made for hire, the author of the work (such as an individual contractor) can, in certain instances, cancel any copyright assignments of such works within a five-year window of time that can commence as early as the 35th year after the copyright assignment.
- Employees/contractors of contractor. Companies should ensure that their contracting and consulting firms have proper copyright assignment contracts and processes in place for their own contractors and employees.
Patents
Subject to certain qualifications, under U.S. patent law inventors can obtain patents on any “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, compositions of matter … or improvement.” Generally speaking, the patent right initially belongs to the inventor (i.e., the natural person who developed the invention). Inventors can assign their patent rights provided they execute a clear written assignment instrument.
If a company engages a contractor to develop an invention, the company should ensure that it has a written agreement with the contractor in which the contractor:
- Is required to promptly disclose any inventions
- Assigns all the patent rights in such inventions
- Agrees to cooperate with the company in connection with the registration and perfection of patent rights
Trade secrets
Trade Secrets are a type of intellectual property that state law protects. Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which most states have adopted, a trade secret is “information”—including a formula, program, method, technique or process—that is valuable because it is not generally known and is maintained in secret. A company should ensure that its contractor agreements require the contractor to both convey any trade secret rights the contractor may have in his work and not disclose any of the company's proprietary information, inventions and processes to third parties.
Foreign contractors
Given the increasing use of foreign-based contractors to provide critical technology development services for U.S. business, a company should also take reasonable steps to ensure that foreign-based contractors are complying with local legal requirements when conveying ownership in technology and other deliverables.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1Linklaters Hires Four Partners From Patterson Belknap
- 2Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 3Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
- 4Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 5Friday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250