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
© 2024 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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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