Protecting Company Intellectual Property in Today's Work From Home Economy
With current work practices shifting toward remote working, and the focus of technology development moving increasingly toward computer software, the likelihood is increasing that employees may be developing valuable intellectual property rights away from their employers' offices and using their own resources.
March 25, 2022 at 02:20 PM
8 minute read
In what circumstances might an employer have rights over an employee's invention despite the absence of a traditional written assignment agreement between the parties? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed this question in Omni MedSci v. Apple, 7 F.4th 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2021), in relation to a university professor who invented and patented certain technology during a leave of absence. Although the professor never formally assigned the patents to the university, the parties disputed whether the university's by-laws—which provided that certain inventions "shall be the property of the university"—constituted an effective assignment. While the Federal Circuit held that the phrase "shall be" indicated a mere promise to assign (rather than an effective present assignment of future-developed IP), the fact that the court considered whether to find an assignment despite the absence of a formal written agreement indicates that courts are willing to infer a transfer of employee inventions to the employer.
This consideration has become even more critical in the modern world, where the workplace paradigm shift from in-office to work-from-home has affected the question of when an employee is "at work" and who owns the rights to such employees' inventions. Although employers are best served by having employees sign well-drafted assignment agreements, under certain circumstances employers may own the intellectual property rights relating to employees' inventions even in the absence of such an agreement. These circumstances vary based on whether patents, copyrights, or trade secrets are at issue, with some inventions (such as software) potentially implicating all three.
|Ownership of Patent Rights
In the United States, patent rights are created when a patent is granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and vest initially in the inventor(s) of the patent. Inventors may freely assign these rights to others, including their employers, both before and after the patent grants. It is therefore common for employers to have employees execute an agreement presently assigning all future patent rights to the employer at the start of employment.
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 AllNot All Secrets Are Trade Secrets: SDNY Examines the Limits of NDA Protection
13 minute read'Rampant Piracy': US Record Labels File Copyright Suit Against French Distributor Believe
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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