assignment under us law

• assignments basic law

Assignments: The Basic Law

The assignment of a right or obligation is a common contractual event under the law and the right to assign (or prohibition against assignments) is found in the majority of agreements, leases and business structural documents created in the United States.

As with many terms commonly used, people are familiar with the term but often are not aware or fully aware of what the terms entail. The concept of assignment of rights and obligations is one of those simple concepts with wide ranging ramifications in the contractual and business context and the law imposes severe restrictions on the validity and effect of assignment in many instances. Clear contractual provisions concerning assignments and rights should be in every document and structure created and this article will outline why such drafting is essential for the creation of appropriate and effective contracts and structures.

The reader should first read the article on Limited Liability Entities in the United States and Contracts since the information in those articles will be assumed in this article.

Basic Definitions and Concepts:

An assignment is the transfer of rights held by one party called the “assignor” to another party called the “assignee.” The legal nature of the assignment and the contractual terms of the agreement between the parties determines some additional rights and liabilities that accompany the assignment. The assignment of rights under a contract usually completely transfers the rights to the assignee to receive the benefits accruing under the contract. Ordinarily, the term assignment is limited to the transfer of rights that are intangible, like contractual rights and rights connected with property. Merchants Service Co. v. Small Claims Court , 35 Cal. 2d 109, 113-114 (Cal. 1950).

An assignment will generally be permitted under the law unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the underlying contract or lease. Where assignments are permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract but may merely assign the rights at that time. However, an assignment cannot have any adverse effect on the duties of the other party to the contract, nor can it diminish the chance of the other party receiving complete performance. The assignor normally remains liable unless there is an agreement to the contrary by the other party to the contract.

The effect of a valid assignment is to remove privity between the assignor and the obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee. Privity is usually defined as a direct and immediate contractual relationship. See Merchants case above.

Further, for the assignment to be effective in most jurisdictions, it must occur in the present. One does not normally assign a future right; the assignment vests immediate rights and obligations.

No specific language is required to create an assignment so long as the assignor makes clear his/her intent to assign identified contractual rights to the assignee. Since expensive litigation can erupt from ambiguous or vague language, obtaining the correct verbiage is vital. An agreement must manifest the intent to transfer rights and can either be oral or in writing and the rights assigned must be certain.

Note that an assignment of an interest is the transfer of some identifiable property, claim, or right from the assignor to the assignee. The assignment operates to transfer to the assignee all of the rights, title, or interest of the assignor in the thing assigned. A transfer of all rights, title, and interests conveys everything that the assignor owned in the thing assigned and the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor. Knott v. McDonald’s Corp ., 985 F. Supp. 1222 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

The parties must intend to effectuate an assignment at the time of the transfer, although no particular language or procedure is necessary. As long ago as the case of National Reserve Co. v. Metropolitan Trust Co ., 17 Cal. 2d 827 (Cal. 1941), the court held that in determining what rights or interests pass under an assignment, the intention of the parties as manifested in the instrument is controlling.

The intent of the parties to an assignment is a question of fact to be derived not only from the instrument executed by the parties but also from the surrounding circumstances. When there is no writing to evidence the intention to transfer some identifiable property, claim, or right, it is necessary to scrutinize the surrounding circumstances and parties’ acts to ascertain their intentions. Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998)

The general rule applicable to assignments of choses in action is that an assignment, unless there is a contract to the contrary, carries with it all securities held by the assignor as collateral to the claim and all rights incidental thereto and vests in the assignee the equitable title to such collateral securities and incidental rights. An unqualified assignment of a contract or chose in action, however, with no indication of the intent of the parties, vests in the assignee the assigned contract or chose and all rights and remedies incidental thereto.

More examples: In Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs ., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998), the court held that the assignee of a party to a subordination agreement is entitled to the benefits and is subject to the burdens of the agreement. In Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Eno , 99 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1930), the court held that the mere assignment of all sums due in and of itself creates no different or other liability of the owner to the assignee than that which existed from the owner to the assignor.

And note that even though an assignment vests in the assignee all rights, remedies, and contingent benefits which are incidental to the thing assigned, those which are personal to the assignor and for his sole benefit are not assigned. Rasp v. Hidden Valley Lake, Inc ., 519 N.E.2d 153, 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Thus, if the underlying agreement provides that a service can only be provided to X, X cannot assign that right to Y.

Novation Compared to Assignment:

Although the difference between a novation and an assignment may appear narrow, it is an essential one. “Novation is a act whereby one party transfers all its obligations and benefits under a contract to a third party.” In a novation, a third party successfully substitutes the original party as a party to the contract. “When a contract is novated, the other contracting party must be left in the same position he was in prior to the novation being made.”

A sublease is the transfer when a tenant retains some right of reentry onto the leased premises. However, if the tenant transfers the entire leasehold estate, retaining no right of reentry or other reversionary interest, then the transfer is an assignment. The assignor is normally also removed from liability to the landlord only if the landlord consents or allowed that right in the lease. In a sublease, the original tenant is not released from the obligations of the original lease.

Equitable Assignments:

An equitable assignment is one in which one has a future interest and is not valid at law but valid in a court of equity. In National Bank of Republic v. United Sec. Life Ins. & Trust Co. , 17 App. D.C. 112 (D.C. Cir. 1900), the court held that to constitute an equitable assignment of a chose in action, the following has to occur generally: anything said written or done, in pursuance of an agreement and for valuable consideration, or in consideration of an antecedent debt, to place a chose in action or fund out of the control of the owner, and appropriate it to or in favor of another person, amounts to an equitable assignment. Thus, an agreement, between a debtor and a creditor, that the debt shall be paid out of a specific fund going to the debtor may operate as an equitable assignment.

In Egyptian Navigation Co. v. Baker Invs. Corp. , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30804 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2008), the court stated that an equitable assignment occurs under English law when an assignor, with an intent to transfer his/her right to a chose in action, informs the assignee about the right so transferred.

An executory agreement or a declaration of trust are also equitable assignments if unenforceable as assignments by a court of law but enforceable by a court of equity exercising sound discretion according to the circumstances of the case. Since California combines courts of equity and courts of law, the same court would hear arguments as to whether an equitable assignment had occurred. Quite often, such relief is granted to avoid fraud or unjust enrichment.

Note that obtaining an assignment through fraudulent means invalidates the assignment. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. Walker v. Rich , 79 Cal. App. 139 (Cal. App. 1926). If an assignment is made with the fraudulent intent to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors, then it is void as fraudulent in fact. See our article on Transfers to Defraud Creditors .

But note that the motives that prompted an assignor to make the transfer will be considered as immaterial and will constitute no defense to an action by the assignee, if an assignment is considered as valid in all other respects.

Enforceability of Assignments:

Whether a right under a contract is capable of being transferred is determined by the law of the place where the contract was entered into. The validity and effect of an assignment is determined by the law of the place of assignment. The validity of an assignment of a contractual right is governed by the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the assignment and the parties.

In some jurisdictions, the traditional conflict of laws rules governing assignments has been rejected and the law of the place having the most significant contacts with the assignment applies. In Downs v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co ., 14 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1964), a wife and her husband separated and the wife obtained a judgment of separation from the husband in New York. The judgment required the husband to pay a certain yearly sum to the wife. The husband assigned 50 percent of his future salary, wages, and earnings to the wife. The agreement authorized the employer to make such payments to the wife.

After the husband moved from New York, the wife learned that he was employed by an employer in Massachusetts. She sent the proper notice and demanded payment under the agreement. The employer refused and the wife brought an action for enforcement. The court observed that Massachusetts did not prohibit assignment of the husband’s wages. Moreover, Massachusetts law was not controlling because New York had the most significant relationship with the assignment. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the wife.

Therefore, the validity of an assignment is determined by looking to the law of the forum with the most significant relationship to the assignment itself. To determine the applicable law of assignments, the court must look to the law of the state which is most significantly related to the principal issue before it.

Assignment of Contractual Rights:

Generally, the law allows the assignment of a contractual right unless the substitution of rights would materially change the duty of the obligor, materially increase the burden or risk imposed on the obligor by the contract, materially impair the chance of obtaining return performance, or materially reduce the value of the performance to the obligor. Restat 2d of Contracts, § 317(2)(a). This presumes that the underlying agreement is silent on the right to assign.

If the contract specifically precludes assignment, the contractual right is not assignable. Whether a contract is assignable is a matter of contractual intent and one must look to the language used by the parties to discern that intent.

In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, the rights and duties under a bilateral executory contract that does not involve personal skill, trust, or confidence may be assigned without the consent of the other party. But note that an assignment is invalid if it would materially alter the other party’s duties and responsibilities. Once an assignment is effective, the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and assumes all of assignor’s rights. Hence, after a valid assignment, the assignor’s right to performance is extinguished, transferred to assignee, and the assignee possesses the same rights, benefits, and remedies assignor once possessed. Robert Lamb Hart Planners & Architects v. Evergreen, Ltd. , 787 F. Supp. 753 (S.D. Ohio 1992).

On the other hand, an assignee’s right against the obligor is subject to “all of the limitations of the assignor’s right, all defenses thereto, and all set-offs and counterclaims which would have been available against the assignor had there been no assignment, provided that these defenses and set-offs are based on facts existing at the time of the assignment.” See Robert Lamb , case, above.

The power of the contract to restrict assignment is broad. Usually, contractual provisions that restrict assignment of the contract without the consent of the obligor are valid and enforceable, even when there is statutory authorization for the assignment. The restriction of the power to assign is often ineffective unless the restriction is expressly and precisely stated. Anti-assignment clauses are effective only if they contain clear, unambiguous language of prohibition. Anti-assignment clauses protect only the obligor and do not affect the transaction between the assignee and assignor.

Usually, a prohibition against the assignment of a contract does not prevent an assignment of the right to receive payments due, unless circumstances indicate the contrary. Moreover, the contracting parties cannot, by a mere non-assignment provision, prevent the effectual alienation of the right to money which becomes due under the contract.

A contract provision prohibiting or restricting an assignment may be waived, or a party may so act as to be estopped from objecting to the assignment, such as by effectively ratifying the assignment. The power to void an assignment made in violation of an anti-assignment clause may be waived either before or after the assignment. See our article on Contracts.

Noncompete Clauses and Assignments:

Of critical import to most buyers of businesses is the ability to ensure that key employees of the business being purchased cannot start a competing company. Some states strictly limit such clauses, some do allow them. California does restrict noncompete clauses, only allowing them under certain circumstances. A common question in those states that do allow them is whether such rights can be assigned to a new party, such as the buyer of the buyer.

A covenant not to compete, also called a non-competitive clause, is a formal agreement prohibiting one party from performing similar work or business within a designated area for a specified amount of time. This type of clause is generally included in contracts between employer and employee and contracts between buyer and seller of a business.

Many workers sign a covenant not to compete as part of the paperwork required for employment. It may be a separate document similar to a non-disclosure agreement, or buried within a number of other clauses in a contract. A covenant not to compete is generally legal and enforceable, although there are some exceptions and restrictions.

Whenever a company recruits skilled employees, it invests a significant amount of time and training. For example, it often takes years before a research chemist or a design engineer develops a workable knowledge of a company’s product line, including trade secrets and highly sensitive information. Once an employee gains this knowledge and experience, however, all sorts of things can happen. The employee could work for the company until retirement, accept a better offer from a competing company or start up his or her own business.

A covenant not to compete may cover a number of potential issues between employers and former employees. Many companies spend years developing a local base of customers or clients. It is important that this customer base not fall into the hands of local competitors. When an employee signs a covenant not to compete, he or she usually agrees not to use insider knowledge of the company’s customer base to disadvantage the company. The covenant not to compete often defines a broad geographical area considered off-limits to former employees, possibly tens or hundreds of miles.

Another area of concern covered by a covenant not to compete is a potential ‘brain drain’. Some high-level former employees may seek to recruit others from the same company to create new competition. Retention of employees, especially those with unique skills or proprietary knowledge, is vital for most companies, so a covenant not to compete may spell out definite restrictions on the hiring or recruiting of employees.

A covenant not to compete may also define a specific amount of time before a former employee can seek employment in a similar field. Many companies offer a substantial severance package to make sure former employees are financially solvent until the terms of the covenant not to compete have been met.

Because the use of a covenant not to compete can be controversial, a handful of states, including California, have largely banned this type of contractual language. The legal enforcement of these agreements falls on individual states, and many have sided with the employee during arbitration or litigation. A covenant not to compete must be reasonable and specific, with defined time periods and coverage areas. If the agreement gives the company too much power over former employees or is ambiguous, state courts may declare it to be overbroad and therefore unenforceable. In such case, the employee would be free to pursue any employment opportunity, including working for a direct competitor or starting up a new company of his or her own.

It has been held that an employee’s covenant not to compete is assignable where one business is transferred to another, that a merger does not constitute an assignment of a covenant not to compete, and that a covenant not to compete is enforceable by a successor to the employer where the assignment does not create an added burden of employment or other disadvantage to the employee. However, in some states such as Hawaii, it has also been held that a covenant not to compete is not assignable and under various statutes for various reasons that such covenants are not enforceable against an employee by a successor to the employer. Hawaii v. Gannett Pac. Corp. , 99 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 1999)

It is vital to obtain the relevant law of the applicable state before drafting or attempting to enforce assignment rights in this particular area.

Conclusion:

In the current business world of fast changing structures, agreements, employees and projects, the ability to assign rights and obligations is essential to allow flexibility and adjustment to new situations. Conversely, the ability to hold a contracting party into the deal may be essential for the future of a party. Thus, the law of assignments and the restriction on same is a critical aspect of every agreement and every structure. This basic provision is often glanced at by the contracting parties, or scribbled into the deal at the last minute but can easily become the most vital part of the transaction.

As an example, one client of ours came into the office outraged that his co venturer on a sizable exporting agreement, who had excellent connections in Brazil, had elected to pursue another venture instead and assigned the agreement to a party unknown to our client and without the business contacts our client considered vital. When we examined the handwritten agreement our client had drafted in a restaurant in Sao Paolo, we discovered there was no restriction on assignment whatsoever…our client had not even considered that right when drafting the agreement after a full day of work.

One choses who one does business with carefully…to ensure that one’s choice remains the party on the other side of the contract, one must master the ability to negotiate proper assignment provisions.

Founded in 1939, our law firm combines the ability to represent clients in domestic or international matters with the personal interaction with clients that is traditional to a long established law firm.

Read more about our firm

© 2024, Stimmel, Stimmel & Roeser, All rights reserved  | Terms of Use | Site by Bay Design

• What’s New on the Watch?
• COVID-19 Updates
• Private Equity Webinar Series
• Private Equity Finance
• Global PE Update
• Glenn West Musings
• Quarterly Private Funds Update
• Ancillary Agreements
• Co-investments
• Cybersecurity
• Going Privates
• Legal Developments
• Minority Investments
• Portfolio Company Matters
• Purchase Agreements
• R&W Insurance
• Secondaries
• Securities Laws
• Shareholder Agreements
• Specialist Areas
• Contributors
• Global Team
• Privacy Policy

Private Equity

Watch your inbox.

Get the latest views and developments in the private equity world from the Global Private Equity Watch team at Weil.

Contract Assignment: New York | Practical Law

Contract Assignment: New York

Practical law state q&a w-000-2743  (approx. 13 pages).

• Personal Profile
• See all online law products
• Guided Tour
• Subscriber Services

• Financial Law [FBL]
• International Commercial Arbitration [ICMA]
• Private International Law [PRIL]
• International Commercial Law [ICML]

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search

• Find at OUP.com

The Law of Assignment (3rd Edition)

Marcus smith, nico leslie.

This book is the leading text on the law relating to intangible property or choses in action. Its clear and approachable structure covers all forms of intangible property (debts, rights under contract, securities, intellectual property, leases, rights/causes of action, and equitable rights), considering the nature of intangible property, how it comes into being, and how it is transferred or assigned. The first part of the book analyses the general principles regarding intangibles and their transfer, and the second examines the practical considerations relating to particular types of intangibles, securities, insurance contracts, leases, and intellectual property under the law. This new edition includes new chapters on powers of attorney and factoring, areas particularly important to legal practice. Other significant developments include the expansion of the chapter on leases to include leasing of chattels, and more material on securities, especially regarding the operation of settlement systems.

Bibliographic Information

Affiliations are at time of print publication..

Marcus Smith, author

Nico Leslie, author

• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
• Foreword to The Third Edition
• Foreword to the Second Edition
• Foreword to the First Edition
• Preface to The Third Edition
• Preface to the First Edition
• Summary Contents
• Detailed Contents
• Table of Cases
• Statutory Instruments
• Netherlands
• United States
• Conventions
• Regulations
• International Conventions
• List of References
• List of Authority Abbreviations
• Preliminary Material
• Part III.01
• [66.249.64.20|109.248.223.228]
• 109.248.223.228

Assignment vs Novation: Everything You Need to Know

Assignment vs. novation: What's the difference? An assignment agreement transfers one party's rights and obligations under a contract to another party. 4 min read updated on February 01, 2023

Assignment vs. novation: What's the difference? An assignment agreement transfers one party's rights and obligations under a contract to another party. The party transferring their rights and duties is the assignor; the party receiving them is the assignee. Novation is a mechanism where one party transfers all its obligations and rights under a contract to a third party, with the consent of the original counterparty.

The transfer of a benefit or interest from one party to another is referred to as an assignment. While the benefits can be transferred, the obligation or burden behind the contract cannot be. A contract assignment occurs when a party assigns their contractual rights to a third party. The benefit that the issuing party would have received from the contract is now assigned to the third party. The party appointing their rights is referred to as the assignor, while the party obtaining the rights is the assignee. 

The assignor continues to carry the burden and can be held liable by the assignee for failing to fulfill their duties under the contract. Purchasing an indemnity clause from the assignee may help protect the assignor from a future liability. Unlike notation, assignment contracts do not annul the initial agreement and do not establish a new agreement. The original or initial contract continues to be enforced. 

Assignment contracts generally do not require the authorization from all parties in the agreement. Based on the terms, the assignor will most likely only need to notify the nonassigning party.

In regards to a contract being assignable, if an agreement seems silent or unclear, courts have decided that the contract is typically assignable. However, this does not apply to personal service contracts where consent is mandatory. The Supreme Court of Canada , or SCC, has determined that a personal service contract must be created for the original parties based on the special characteristics, skills, or confidences that are uniquely displayed between them. Many times, the courts need to intervene to determine whether an agreement is indeed a personal service contract.

Overall, assignment is more convenient for the assignor than novation. The assignor is not required to ask for approval from a third party in order to assign their interest in an agreement to the assignee. The assignor should be aware of the potential liability risk if the assignee doesn't perform their duties as stated in the assigned contract.

Novation has the potential to limit future liabilities to an assignor, but it also is usually more burdensome for the parties involved. Additionally, it's not always achievable if a third party refuses to give consent.

It's essential for the two parties in an agreement to appraise their relationship before transitioning to novation. An assignment is preferential for parties that would like to continue performing their obligations, but also transition some of their rights to another party.

A novation occurs when a party would like to transfer both the benefits and the burden within a contract to another party. Similar to assignment, the benefits are transferred, but unlike assignment, the burden is also transferred. When a novation is completed, the original contract is deleted and is replaced with a new one. In this new contract, a third party is now responsible for the obligations and rights. Generally, novation does not cancel any past obligations or rights under the initial contract, although it is possible to novate these as well.

Novation needs to be approved by both parties of the original contract and the new joining third party. Some amount of consideration must also be provided in the new contract in order for it to be novated, unless the novation is cited in a deed that is signed by all parties to the contract. In this situation, consideration is referring to something of value that is being gained through the contract.

Novation occurs when the purchaser to the original agreement is attempting to replace the seller of an original contract. Once novated, the original seller is released from any obligation under the initial contract. The SCC has established a three-point test to implement novation. The asserting party must prove:

• The purchaser accepts complete liability
• The creditor to the original contract accepts the purchaser as the official debtor, and not simply as a guarantor or agent of the seller
• The creditor to the original contract accepts the new contract as the replacement for the old one

Also, the SSC insisted that if a new agreement doesn't exist, the court would not find novation unless the precedence was unusually compelling.

If you need help determining if assignment vs. novation is best for you, you can  post your job  on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.

Hire the top business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees

Content Approved by UpCounsel

• Contract Transfer
• Novation Agreement
• What is Novation of Contract
• Novation of Contract
• Contract Novation Letter
• Deed of Novation
• Contract Novation
• Loan Novation Agreement
• Assignment of Rights Example
• Contract Novation Agreement

United States: When Is An "Assignment" Clause Worth Fighting For?

Q. My small business is negotiating with a vendor who has asked to remove our contract’s “assignment” clause entirely. Is it worth the time to argue over whether to include an assignment clause?

A.  First, it’s important to understand the purpose of the assignment clause. “Assignment” occurs when a party transfers its rights and obligations under a contract to another party. Generally, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, each can assign its rights and obligations freely.

Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a set of laws governing the sale of goods that has been adopted by 49 states, including New Hampshire, provides that a party can freely assign its rights and obligations to another unless such assignment would materially change the duties of the other party, burden the other party, or decrease the other party’s chances of receiving performance under the contract.

If your vendor eliminates the assignment clause and no agreement on the topic is provided in the contract, your vendor will be free to transfer its obligations to another person or company without giving you notice or obtaining your approval.

Parties do have the ability, however, to mutually decide against the free assignability of a contract and this is often accomplished through an assignment clause. An assignment clause spells out which, if any, of a party’s obligations and rights under a contract are able to be assigned, or transferred, to another party. Free assignability and no assignability are not the only options, and you and your vendor can negotiate terms for assignment that are amenable to both of you.

For example, some clauses allow for assignment with the other party’s consent, meaning, the vendor would have to obtain your approval of the assignee prior to assigning any of its rights or obligations under the contract. Other times, assignment clauses allow for free assignment only to certain persons or entities, such as the vendor’s subsidiaries and affiliates, provided that the vendor gives you notice of such permitted assignment. Another option is to allow for assignment by the vendor provided that it guaranties the assignee’s performance.

Consider potential situations in which the vendor may want to assign the contract and determine whether it’s important to you to have control over assignment in each instance.

Consider discussing situations in which it may be important for the vendor to have freedom of assignment and, instead of removing the provision all together, specify those situations in which assignment is permitted, list those rights or obligations that are assignable, and consider whether, when assignment is permitted, notice, consent or a guaranty will be required.

Published in the Union Leader (2/25/2019)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

  © Mondaq® Ltd 1994 - 2024. All Rights Reserved .

Login to Mondaq.com

Password Passwords are Case Sensitive

Forgot your password?

Why Register with Mondaq

Free, unlimited access to more than half a million articles (one-article limit removed) from the diverse perspectives of 5,000 leading law, accountancy and advisory firms

Articles tailored to your interests and optional alerts about important changes

Receive priority invitations to relevant webinars and events

You’ll only need to do it once, and readership information is just for authors and is never sold to third parties.

Your Organisation

We need this to enable us to match you with other users from the same organisation. It is also part of the information that we share to our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Contact us whenever you need it!

+1 855 997 0206

Contact Hours: Sun-Sat 8am - 10pm ET

• LawDistrict ❯
• Legal Dictionary

Assignment is a legal definition that refers to the transfer of rights, property, or other benefits between two parties. The party allocating the rights is known as the “assignor”, while the one receiving them is called the “assignee”. The other original party to the contract is known as the “ obligor ”.

A burden, duty, or detriment cannot be transferred as an assignment without the agreement of the assignee . Furthermore, the assignment can be carried out as a gift, or it may be paid for with a contractual consideration .

Keep reading to learn how this important legal term is used both in contract and property law and to see relevant examples.

• Assignment Examples

A common example of assignment within property law can be seen in rental agreements between landlords and tenants. For example, a tenant may be renting from a landlord but wants another party to take over the property . In this scenario, the tenant may be able to choose between assigning the lease to a new tenant or subleasing it.

If assigning it, the new tenant will be given the entire balance of the term, with no reversion to anyone else being possible. In other words, the new tenant would have a legal relationship with the landlord. On the other hand, if subleasing the property, the new tenant would be given a limited term and no legal responsibility towards the property owner, only towards the original tenant.

Another example of assignment can be seen within contract law . Let’s say that a school hires a piano teacher for a monthly employment contract with a salary of $2000 per month. As long as there is consent from all parties, the teacher could assign their contract to another qualified piano instructor.

This would be an assignment both of the piano teacher’s rights to receive $2000 per month, and a delegation of their duty to teach piano lessons. This illustrates the fact that under contract law, assignment always includes a transfer of both rights and duties between the parties. If a breach of contract is made by either party, for example for defective performance, then the new teacher or the school can sue each other accordingly.

• Legal Requirements for Assignment

For an assignment to be legally valid, it must meet certain requirements . If these are not met, a trial court can determine that the transfer of rights did not occur. The legal requirements for assignment are as follows:

• All parties must consent and be legally capable to carry out the assignment.
• The objects, rights, or benefits being transferred must be legal.
• The assignment is not against public policy or illegal.
• Some type of consideration is included if necessary.
• The contract in question must already be in place and doesn’t prohibit assignment.
• If a duty is being transferred, and it requires a rare genius or skill, then it cannot be delegated.
• The assignment doesn’t significantly change the expected outcome of a contract.
• Assignment Steps

To successfully assign a contract, certain steps must be followed to ensure the process is legally valid. The necessary assignment steps are listed below:

• Ensuring there is no anti-assignment clause in the contract.
• Executing the assignment by transferring the obligations and rights to a third party.
• Notifying the obligor of the transfer, which in turn relieves the assignor of any liability.
• Avoiding Assignment

In certain situations, one of the two parties may not want to allow their counterpart to assign the contract. This can be prevented by setting anti-assignment clauses in the original contract. An example of this is making it necessary for prior written consent to be attained from the other parties before the assignment is approved. Nevertheless, an anti-assignment clause cannot be included in an assignment that was issued or ordered by a court.

• Assignment vs. Novation

Novation occurs when a party would like to transfer both the benefits and burden of a contract to another party. This is similar to assignment in the sense that the benefits are transferred, but in this case, the burden is also passed on. When novation is finalized, the original contract is deleted and a new one is created, in which a third party becomes responsible for all the obligations and rights of the original contract.

• Assignment vs. Delegation

Although delegation and assignment are similar in purpose, they are two different concepts. Delegation refers to transferring the obligation to a third party without an assignment contract . While in assignment an entire contract and its rights and benefits can be passed on, in delegation only a particular contractual task or activity is transferred.

Let’s look at an example . Lisa is a homeowner that wants to hire Michael with an independent contractor agreement to remodel her garage. He plans to do all the work himself, but he’s not a painter, so he wants to delegate the painting work to his friend Valentina.

In this example, the contract is between Lisa, the obligor, and Michael, the delegator. Valentina would then be known as a delegatee, she doesn’t assume responsibility for the contract nor does she receive the contractual benefits, which in this case would be monetary compensation. However, Michael may have a separate agreement with Valentina to pay her in return for her work.

It’s also important to note that some duties are so specific in nature that it’s not possible to delegate them. In addition, if a party wants to avoid delegation , it’s recommended to add a clause to prevent the other party from delegating their duties.

Create a Customizable Legal Form Now

Get 7 Days Total Access to Our Entire Catalog!

29 Jan 2024

Patent Assignment: How to Transfer Ownership of a Patent

By Michael K. Henry, Ph.D.

• Intellectual Property
• Patent Prosecution

This is the second in a two-part blog series on owning and transferring the rights to a patent. ( Read part one here. )

As we discussed in the first post in this series, patent owners enjoy important legal and commercial benefits: They have the right to exclude others from making, selling, using or importing the claimed invention, and to claim damages from anyone who infringes their patent.

However, a business entity can own a patent only if the inventors have assigned the patent rights to the business entity. So if your employees are creating valuable IP on behalf of your company, it’s important to get the patent assignment right, to ensure that your business is the patent owner.

In this post, we’ll take a closer look at what a patent assignment even is — and the best practices for approaching the process. But remember, assignment (or transfer of ownership) is a function of state law, so there might be some variation by state in how all this gets treated.

What Is a Patent Assignment and Why Does it Matter?

A patent assignment is an agreement where one entity (the “assignor”) transfers all or part of their right, title and interest in a patent or application to another entity (the “assignee”). 

In simpler terms, the assignee receives the original owner’s interest and gains the exclusive rights to pursue patent protection (through filing and prosecuting patent applications), and also to license and enforce the patent. 

Ideally, your business should own its patents if it wants to enjoy the benefits of the patent rights. But  under U.S. law , only an inventor or an assignee can own a patent — and businesses cannot be listed as an inventor. Accordingly, patent assignment is the legal mechanism that transfers ownership from the inventor to your business.

Patent Assignment vs. Licensing

Keep in mind that an assignment is different from a license. The difference is analogous to selling versus renting a house.

In a license agreement, the patent owner (the “licensor”) gives another entity (the “licensee”) permission to use the patented technology, while the patent owner retains ownership. Like a property rental, a patent license contemplates an ongoing relationship between the licensor and licensee.

In a patent assignment, the original owner permanently transfers its ownership to another entity. Like a property sale, a patent assignment is a permanent transfer of legal rights.

U sing Employment Agreements to Transfer Patent Ownership

Before your employees begin developing IP,  implement strong hiring policies  that ensure your IP rights will be legally enforceable in future.

If you’re bringing on a new employee, have them sign an  employment agreement  that establishes up front what IP the company owns — typically, anything the employee invents while under your employment. This part of an employment agreement is often presented as a self-contained document, and referred to as a “Pre-Invention Assignment Agreement” (PIAA).

The employment agreement should include the following provisions:

• Advance assignment of any IP created while employed by your company, or using your company’s resources
• An obligation to disclose any IP created while employed by your company, or using your company’s resources
• An ongoing obligation to provide necessary information and execute documents related to the IP they created while employed, even after their employment ends
• An obligation not to disclose confidential information to third parties, including when the employee moves on to a new employer

To track the IP your employees create, encourage your employees to document their contributions by completing  invention disclosure records .

But the paperwork can be quite involved, which is why your employment policies should also include  incentives to create and disclose valuable IP .

Drafting Agreements for Non-Employees

Some of the innovators working for your business might not have a formal employer-employee relationship with the business. If you don’t make the appropriate arrangements beforehand, this could complicate patent assignments. Keep an eye out for the following staffing arrangements:

• Independent contractors:  Some inventors may be self-employed, or they may be employed by one of your service providers.
• Joint collaborators:  Some inventors may be employed by, say, a subsidiary or service company instead of your company.
• Anyone who did work through an educational institution : For example, Ph.D. candidates may not be employees of either their sponsoring institution or your company.

In these cases, you can still draft contractor or collaborator agreements using the same terms outlined above. Make sure the individual innovator signs it before beginning any work on behalf of your company.

O btaining Written Assignments for New Patent Applications

In addition to getting signed employment agreements, you should  also  get a written assignments for each new patent application when it’s filed, in order to memorialize ownership of the specific patent property.

Don’t rely exclusively on the employment agreement to prove ownership:

• The employment agreement might contain confidential terms, so you don’t want to record them with the patent office
• Because employment agreements are executed before beginning the process of developing the invention, they won’t clearly establish what specific patent applications are being assigned

While you  can  execute the formal assignment for each patent application after the application has been filed, an inventor or co-inventor who no longer works for the company might refuse to execute the assignment.

As such, we recommend executing the assignment before filing, to show ownership as of the filing date and avoid complications (like getting signatures from estranged inventors).

How to Execute a Written Patent Agreement

Well-executed invention assignments should:

• Be in writing:  Oral agreements to assign patent rights are typically not enforceable in the United States
• Clearly identify all parties:  Include the names, addresses, and relationship of the assignor(s) and assignee
• Clearly identify the patent being assigned:  State the patent or patent application number, title, inventors, and filing date
• Be signed by the assignors
• Be notarized : If notarization isn’t possible, have one or two witnesses attest to the signatures

Recording a Patent Assignment With the USPTO

Without a recorded assignment with the U.S. patent office, someone else could claim ownership of the issued patent, and you could even lose your rights in the issued patent in some cases. 

So the patent owner (the Assignee) should should record the assignment through the  USPTO’s Assignment Recordation Branch . They can use the  Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS)  to file a  Recordation Cover Sheet  along with a copy of the actual patent assignment agreement.

They should submit this paperwork  within three months  of the assignment’s date. If it’s recorded electronically, the USPTO  won’t charge a recordation fee .

Need to check who owns a patent?  The USPTO website  publicly lists all information about a patent’s current and previous assignments.

When Would I Need to Execute a New Assignment for a Related Application?

You’ll need only one patent assignment per patent application, unless new matter is introduced in a new filing (e.g., in a  continuation-in-part , or in a non-provisional application that adds new matter to a  provisional application ). In that case, you’ll need an additional assignment to cover the new matter — even if it was developed by the same inventors.

What If an Investor Won’t Sign the Written Assignment?

If you can’t get an inventor to sign an invention assignment, you can still move forward with a patent application — but you’ll need to document your ownership. To document ownership, you can often rely on an   employee agreement ,  company policy ,  invention disclosure , or other employment-related documentation.

D o I Need to Record My Assignments in Foreign Countries?

Most assignments transfer all rights, title, and interest in all patent rights throughout the world.

But in some countries, the assignment might not be legally effective until the assignment has been recorded in that country — meaning that the assignee can’t enforce the patent rights, or claim damages for any infringement that takes place before the recordation. 

And there might be additional formal requirements that aren’t typically required in the United States. For example, some countries might require a transfer between companies to be signed by both parties, and must contain one or both parties’ addresses.

If you’re assigning patents issued by a foreign country, consult a patent attorney in that country to find out what’s required to properly document the transfer of ownership.

N eed Help With Your Patent Assignments?

Crafting robust assignment agreements is essential to ensuring the proper transfer of patent ownership. An  experienced patent professional  can help you to prepare legally enforceable documentation.

Henry Patent Law Firm has worked with tech businesses of all sizes to execute patent assignments —  contact us now  to learn more.

GOT A QUESTION? Whether you want to know more about the patent process or think we might be a good fit for your needs – we’d love to hear from you!

Michael K. Henry, Ph.D.

Michael K. Henry, Ph.D., is a principal and the firm’s founding member. He specializes in creating comprehensive, growth-oriented IP strategies for early-stage tech companies.

10 Jan 2024

Geothermal Energy: An Overview of the Patent Landscape

By Michael Henry

Don't miss a new article. Henry Patent Law's Patent Law News + Insights blog is designed to help people like you build smart, scalable patent strategies that protect your intellectual property as your business grows. Subscribe to receive email updates every time we publish a new article — don't miss out on key tips to help your business be more successful.

• Patent Laws, Regulations, Policies & Procedures
• Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
• Chapter 0300
• Section 301

301 Ownership/Assignability of Patents and Applications [R-10.2019]

35 u.s.c. 261   ownership; assignment..

Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property. The Patent and Trademark Office shall maintain a register of interests in patents and applications for patents and shall record any document related thereto upon request, and may require a fee therefor.

Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing. The applicant, patentee, or his assigns or legal representatives may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent, or patents, to the whole or any specified part of the United States.

A certificate of acknowledgment under the hand and official seal of a person authorized to administer oaths within the United States, or, in a foreign country, of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States or an officer authorized to administer oaths whose authority is proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or apostille of an official designated by a foreign country which, by treaty or convention, accords like effect to apostilles of designated officials in the United States, shall be prima facie evidence of the execution of an assignment, grant, or conveyance of a patent or application for patent.

An interest that constitutes an assignment, grant, or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage.

35 U.S.C. 262   Joint owners.

In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, each of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the United States, or import the patented invention into the United States, without the consent of and without accounting to the other owners.

37 CFR 3.1  Definitions.

For purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply:

Application means a national application for patent, an international patent application that designates the United States of America, an international design application that designates the United States of America, or an application to register a trademark under section 1 or 44 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 or 15 U.S.C. 1126, unless otherwise indicated.

Assignment means a transfer by a party of all or part of its right, title and interest in a patent, patent application, registered mark or a mark for which an application to register has been filed.

Document means a document which a party requests to be recorded in the Office pursuant to § 3.11 and which affects some interest in an application, patent, or registration.

Office means the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Recorded document means a document which has been recorded in the Office pursuant to § 3.11 .

Registration means a trademark registration issued by the Office.

Ownership of a patent gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing into the United States the invention claimed in the patent. 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(1) . Ownership of the patent does not furnish the owner with the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell, or import the claimed invention because there may be other legal considerations precluding same (e.g., existence of another patent owner with a dominant patent, failure to obtain FDA approval of the patented invention, an injunction by a court against making the product of the invention, or a national security related issue).

For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the original applicant is presumed to be the owner of the application for an original patent. See 37 CFR 3.73(a) . For applications filed before September 16, 2012, the ownership of the patent (or the application for the patent) initially vests in the named inventors of the invention of the patent. See Beech Aircraft Corp. v. EDO Corp., 990 F.2d 1237, 1248, 26 USPQ2d 1572, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A patent or patent application is assignable by an instrument in writing, and the assignment of the patent, or patent application, transfers to the assignee(s) an alienable (transferable) ownership interest in the patent or application. 35 U.S.C. 261 .

“Assignment,” in general, is the act of transferring to another the ownership of one’s property, i.e., the interest and rights to the property. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cannot explain or interpret laws that govern assignments and related documents, nor can it act as counselor for individuals. Assignments and other documents are contracts that are governed by the relevant state or jurisdictional law.

In 37 CFR 3.1 , assignment of patent rights is defined as “a transfer by a party of all or part of its right, title and interest in a patent [or] patent application....” An assignment of a patent, or patent application, is the transfer to another of a party’s entire ownership interest or a percentage of that party’s ownership interest in the patent or application. In order for an assignment to take place, the transfer to another must include the entirety of the bundle of rights that is associated with the ownership interest, i.e., all of the bundle of rights that are inherent in the right, title and interest in the patent or patent application. 35 U.S.C. 261 requires transfer of ownership by an assignment to be in writing. See Realvirt, LLC v. Lee, 195 F.Supp.3d 847, 859 (E.D. Va. 2016).

As compared to assignment of patent rights, the licensing of a patent transfers a bundle of rights which is less than the entire ownership interest, e.g., rights that may be limited as to time, geographical area, or field of use. A patent license is, in effect, a contractual agreement that the patent owner will not sue the licensee for patent infringement if the licensee makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, or imports the claimed invention, as long as the licensee fulfills its obligations and operates within the bounds delineated by the license agreement.

An exclusive license may be granted by the patent owner to a licensee. The exclusive license prevents the patent owner (or any other party to whom the patent owner might wish to sell a license) from competing with the exclusive licensee, as to the geographic region, the length of time, and/or the field of use, set forth in the license agreement.

A license is not an assignment of the patent. Even if the license is an exclusive license, it is not an assignment of patent rights in the patent or application.

Individual ownership - An individual entity may own the entire right, title and interest of the patent property. This occurs where there is only one inventor, and the inventor has not assigned the patent property. Alternatively, it occurs where all parties having ownership interest (all inventors and assignees) assign the patent property to one party.

Joint ownership - Multiple parties may together own the entire right, title and interest of the patent property. This occurs when any of the following cases exist:

• (A) Multiple partial assignees of the patent property;
• (B) Multiple inventors who have not assigned their right, title and interest; or
• (C) A combination of partial assignee(s), and inventor(s) who have not assigned their right, title and interest.

Each individual inventor may only assign the interest he or she holds; thus, assignment by one joint inventor renders the assignee a partial assignee. A partial assignee likewise may only assign the interest it holds; thus, assignment by a partial assignee renders a subsequent assignee a partial assignee. All parties having any portion of the ownership in the patent property must act together as a composite entity in patent matters before the Office.

An assignment can be made of record in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) in two different ways, for two different purposes. The differences are important to note:

• (A) An assignment can be made of record in the assignment records of the Office as provided for in 37 CFR Part 3 . Recordation of the assignment provides legal notice to the public of the assignment. It should be noted that recording of the assignment is merely a ministerial act; it is not an Office determination of the validity of the assignment document or the effect of the assignment document on the ownership of the patent property. See 37 CFR 3.54 , MPEP § 317.03 , and Realvirt, LLC v. Lee, 195 F.Supp.3d 847, 862-3 (E.D. Va. 2016). For a patent to issue to an assignee, the assignment must have been recorded or filed for recordation in accordance with 37 CFR 3.11 . See 37 CFR 3.81(a) .
• (B) An assignment can be made of record in the file of a patent application, patent, or other patent proceeding (e.g., reexamination proceeding). This step may be necessary to permit the assignee to “take action” in the application, patent, or other patent proceeding under the conditions set forth in 37 CFR 1.46 and 37 CFR 3.81(a) and MPEP § 325 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) or under the conditions set forth in pre-AIA 37 CFR 3.73 and MPEP § 324 (for applications filed before September 16, 2012). Recordation of an assignment in the assignment records of the Office does not , by itself, permit the assignee to take action in the application, patent, or other patent proceeding.

Additionally, for applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) , 363 , or 385 on or after September 16, 2012, an assignment may contain the statements required to be made in an oath or declaration (“assignment-statement”), and if the assignment is made of record in the assignment records of the Office, then the assignment may be utilized as the oath or declaration. See 35 U.S.C. 115(e) , 37 CFR 1.63(e) , and MPEP §§ 302.07 , 317 , and MPEP § 602.01(a) .

301.01 Accessibility of Assignment Records [R-10.2019]

37 cfr 1.12  assignment records open to public inspection..

• (1) Separate assignment records are maintained in the United States Patent and Trademark Office for patents and trademarks. The assignment records, relating to original or reissue patents, including digests and indexes (for assignments recorded on or after May 1, 1957), and published patent applications are open to public inspection at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and copies of patent assignment records may be obtained upon request and payment of the fee set forth in § 1.19 of this chapter. See § 2.200 of this chapter regarding trademark assignment records.
• (2) All records of assignments of patents recorded before May 1, 1957, are maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The records are open to public inspection. Certified and uncertified copies of those assignment records are provided by NARA upon request and payment of the fees required by NARA.
• (b) Assignment records, digests, and indexes relating to any pending or abandoned patent application, which is open to the public pursuant to § 1.11 or for which copies or access may be supplied pursuant to § 1.14 , are available to the public. Copies of any assignment records, digests, and indexes that are not available to the public shall be obtainable only upon written authority of an inventor, the applicant, the assignee or an assignee of an undivided part interest, or a patent practitioner of record, or upon a showing that the person seeking such information is a bona fide prospective or actual purchaser, mortgagee, or licensee of such application, unless it shall be necessary to the proper conduct of business before the Office or as provided in this part.
• (1) Be in the form of a petition including the fee set forth in § 1.17(g) ; or
• (2) Include written authority granting access to the member of the public to the particular assignment records from an inventor, the applicant, the assignee or an assignee of an undivided part interest, or a patent practitioner of record.
• (d) An order for a copy of an assignment or other document should identify the reel and frame number where the assignment or document is recorded. If a document is identified without specifying its correct reel and frame, an extra charge as set forth in § 1.21(j) will be made for the time consumed in making a search for such assignment.

Assignment documents relating to patents, published patent applications, registrations of trademarks, and applications for registration of trademarks are open to public inspection. Records related to assignments of patents, and patent applications that have been published as patent application publications are available on the USPTO website. Images of assignment documents recorded June 1998 and later are also viewable on the Office website. To view images of earlier-recorded assignment documents, members of the public must place an order pursuant to 37 CFR 1.12(d) .

The Office will not open only certain parts of an assignment document to public inspection. If such a document contains two or more items, any one of which, if alone, would be open to such inspection, then the entire document will be open. Thus, if a document covers either a trademark or a patent in addition to one or more patent applications, it will be available to the public ab initio; and if it covers a number of patent applications, it will be so available as soon as any one of them is published or patented. Documents relating only to one or more pending applications for patent which have not been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) will not be open to public inspection.

Copies of assignment records relating to pending or abandoned patent applications which are open to the public pursuant to 37 CFR 1.11 or for which copies or access may be supplied pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14 are available to the public. For pending or abandoned applications which are not open to the public pursuant to 37 CFR 1.11 or for which copies or access may not be supplied pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14 , information related thereto is only obtainable upon a proper showing of written authority. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the written authority must be from (A) an inventor, (B) an applicant, (C) the assignee or an assignee of an undivided part interest, (D) a patent practitioner of record, or (E) a person with written authority from (A), (B), or (C) or (D). See 37 CFR 1.12 . For applications filed prior to September 16, 2012, the written authority must be from the applicant or applicant’s assignee or from the attorney or agent of either, or upon a showing that the person seeking such information is a bona fide prospective or actual purchaser, mortgagee, or licensee of such application. See pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.12 .

If the application on which a patent was granted is a division, continuation, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application, the assignment records of that earlier application will be open to public inspection because copies or access may be supplied to the earlier application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.14 .

Assignment records relating to reissue applications are open to public inspection because reissue applications are open to public inspection pursuant to 37 CFR 1.11(b) .

Requests for abstracts of title for assignments of patents recorded after May 1, 1957, are provided by the Certification Division upon request and payment of fee required in 37 CFR 1.19 . Requests for copies of pre-1957 records for patents should be directed to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Since these records are maintained by NARA, it is more expeditious to request copies directly from NARA, rather than from the Office, which would then have to route the requests to NARA. Payment of the fees required by NARA should accompany all requests for copies.

All assignment records from 1837 to April 30, 1957 for patents are now maintained and are open for public inspection in the National Archives Research Room located at the Washington National Records Center Building, 4205 Suitland Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746 and at the Civilian Records Division of the National Archives at College Park, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Assignment records from before 1837 are not available. Individuals should check the National Archives website, www.archives.gov , for how to obtain information from these locations.

• 301.01-Accessibility of Assignment Records
• 302.01-Assignment Document Must Be Copy for Recording
• 302.02-Translation of Assignment Document
• 302.03-Identifying Patent or Application
• 302.04-Foreign Assignee May Designate Domestic Representative
• 302.05-Address of Assignee
• 302.06-Fee for Recording
• 302.07-Assignment Document Must Be Accompanied by a Cover Sheet 
• 302.08-Mailing Address for Submitting Assignment Documents
• 302.09-Facsimile Submission of Assignment Documents
• 302.10-Electronic Submission of Assignment Documents
• 303-Assignment Documents Not Endorsed on Pending Applications
• 304‑305-[Reserved]
• 306.01-Assignment of an Application Claiming the Benefits of a Provisional Application
• 307-Issue to Non-Applicant Assignee
• 308-Issue to Applicant
• 309-Restrictions Upon Employees of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
• 310-Government License Rights to Contractor-Owned Inventions Made Under Federally Sponsored Research and Development
• 311-Filing of Notice of Arbitration Awards
• 312-[Reserved]
• 313-Recording of Licenses, Security Interests, and Documents Other Than Assignments
• 314-Certificates of Change of Name or of Merger
• 315-Indexing Against a Recorded Certificate
• 316-[Reserved]
• 317.01-Recording Date
• 317.02-Correction of Unrecorded Returned Documents and Cover Sheets
• 317.03-Effect of Recording
• 318-Documents Not to be Placed in Files
• 319-[Reserved]
• 320-Title Reports
• 321‑322-[Reserved]
• 323.01(a)-Typographical Errors in Cover Sheet
• 323.01(b)-Typographical Errors in Recorded Assignment Document
• 323.01(c)-Assignment or Change of Name Improperly Filed and Recorded by Another Person Against Owner’s Application or Patent
• 323.01(d)-Expungement of Assignment Records
• 324-Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012
• 325-Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action in Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012

• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Emergencies/Security Alerts
• Information Quality Guidelines
• Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act
• Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (NoFEAR) Act
• Budget & Performance
• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
• Department of Commerce NoFEAR Act Report
• Regulations.gov
• STOP!Fakes.gov
• Department of Commerce
• Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!)
• USPTO Webmaster

Kluwer Patent Blog

A cautionary tale for assignment of rights in u.s. patents.

In Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc. , ___ F.4th ___, Nos. 2020-1715, -1716 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the University of Michigan’s technology transfer bylaws did not constitute an automatic assignment of a professor’s patent rights. This decision has important implications for the drafting of employee agreements as they relate to the ownership of inventions, which in the U.S. vest initially in the inventors.

In 2012, Dr. Islam, a tenured professor at University of Michigan (“UM”), took an unpaid leave-of-absence in order to start a new company, Omni. During his leave, Dr. Islam filed several provisional patent applications that he expected to form the backbone of the IP portfolio for the new company. In 2013, after resuming work at UM, Dr. Islam assigned the issued patents to Omni.

Omni subsequently brought suit against Apple for infringement of two patents descended from the provisional applications filed by Dr. Islam during his leave. Apple moved to dismiss alleging that Omni lacked standing because UM was the real patent owner. Apple argued that UM’s bylaws automatically transferred legal title to the patents to UM, leaving Dr. Islam with no rights to assign to Omni. The district court rejected Apple’s arguments and denied the motion; in a split decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Did UM’s Bylaws Effectuate an Automatic Assignment?

Like all professors at UM, Dr. Islam signed an employment agreement when he was first hired in 1995 in which he agreed to abide by UM’s bylaws.  Those bylaws provided that patents “resulting from activities which have received no support … from the University shall be the property of the inventor,” whereas patents based on activities supported by the University “shall be the property of the University.” The question for the court was whether the bylaws created an obligation to assign or constituted an automatic assignment of the patents at issue, which would have automatically transferred title to UM and left Dr. Islam with no rights in the invention to assign to Omni.

The distinction between automatic assignments and obligations to assign is nicely illustrated by the Stanford v. Roche case. There, Professor Holodniy, a Stanford professor, conducted research at Cetus pursuant to a confidentiality agreement. After his return to Stanford, Professor Holodniy assigned the resulting patent applications to Stanford. When Stanford subsequently sued Roche, Roche raised an ownership defense based on the language in the confidentiality agreement with Cetus. The Cetus agreement stated that Holodniy “will assign and do[es] hereby assign” his rights to Cetus for inventions made “as a consequence of [his] access” to Cetus. By contrast, Holodiny’s employment agreement with Stanford stated that he “agree[d] to assign” rights in inventions resulting from his employment. The Federal Circuit held that the Cetus contract, by virtue of its present-tense “do[es] hereby assign” language, automatically assigned rights to Cetus, but the Stanford contract’s future-tense language did not.

In Omni , the Federal Circuit observed that UM’s bylaws did “not unambiguously constitute either a present automatic assignment or a promise to assign in the future.” The express purpose of the bylaws was, however, to determine under which conditions employees were obliged to assign their inventions to UM and when they would own it themselves. Moreover, after disclosing an invention to the Office of Technology Transfer, employees at UM were asked to sign an Invention Report, which referenced the bylaws and provided: “As required, I/we hereby assign.” The Federal Circuit contrasted the “unambiguous present assignment” in the Invention Report with the language in the bylaws, noting that “[e]ach case in which [the] court found a present automatic assignment examined contractual language with a present tense executing verb. Such present-tense active verbs effectuate a present action.” Thus, the Federal Circuit concluded that the bylaws were “most naturally read as a statement of intended disposition and a promise of a potential future assignment, not as a present automatic transfer.”

Takeaways: How to Play it Safe

While the Federal Circuit noted that there are no “magic words,” the following language has been held to constitute an automatic assignment: “the Employee assigns all of his or her right, interest, or title in any invention to the Employer” ( SiRF Tech v. Int’l Trade Comm’n ); “agrees to and does hereby grant and assign” ( DDB Techs. ); “hereby conveys, transfers, and assigns” ( Speedplay v. Bebop ); and “agrees to grant and does hereby grant” ( FilmTec Corp. v. Allied-Signal ). By contrast, passive verbs in indefinite or future tense are less likely to effectuate a present assignment.  Indeed, agreements providing that an invention “shall be the property of … and all rights thereto will be assigned” to an employer have been held not to be an automatic assignment, but rather, an obligation to assign in the future. By following the language of these precedents, employers and employees can ensure their agreements provide for the desired ownership of inventions.

Concluding Remarks

In dissent, Judge Newman argued that the holding “overturns decades of unchallenged understanding and implementation of the University’s employment agreement and policy documents.” Whether or not this is true, institutions and corporations would be well-advised to review the language used in their employment agreements to ensure it achieves the intended purpose.

_____________________________

To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here .

Kluwer IP Law

The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future? Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.

41 U.S. Code § 6305 - Prohibition on transfer of contract and certain allowable assignments

In subsection (a), the words “The party to whom the Federal Government gives a contract or order” are substituted for “the party to whom such contract or order is given” for clarity. The words “A purported transfer in violation of this subsection” are substituted for “any such transfer” because an actual transfer is precluded by this provision.

In subsection (b)(1), the words “amounts due from the Federal Government” are substituted for “moneys due or to become due from the United States or from any agency or department thereof” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “may be assigned” are added to provide explicitly for authority that is necessarily implied by the source provision.

In subsection (b)(3), the words “in the case of any contract entered into after October 9, 1940 ” are omitted as obsolete.

In subsection (b)(5), the words “participating in such financing” are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (b)(8), the words “is not liable to make any refund to the Federal Government” are substituted for “no [liability] . . . shall create or impose any liability on the part of the assignee to make restitution, refund, or repayment to the United States of any amount heretofore since July 1, 1950 , or hereafter received under the assignment” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “an assignor’s liability to the Federal Government” are substituted for “liability of any nature of the assignor to the United States or any department or agency thereof ” for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (b)(9)(A), the words “except any such contract under which full payment has been made” are omitted as unnecessary because subsection (b)(8) precludes refund where full payment has already been made. The words “payments made to an assignee under the contract” are substituted for “payments to be made to the assignee of any moneys due or to become due under such contract” to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (b)(9)(B), the words “When a ‘no reduction or setoff ’ provision as described in subparagraph (A) is included in a contract” are substituted for “If a provision described in subsection (e) of this section or a provision to the same general effect has been at any time heretofore or is hereafter included or inserted in any such contract”, the words “payments to the assignee” are substituted for “payments to be made thereafter to an assignee of any moneys due or to become due”, and the words “an assignor’s liability” are substituted for “any liability of any nature of the assignor to the United States or any department or agency thereof ”, for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (b)(9)(C), the text of 40:15(g), which provided that nothing in 40:15 affected rights and obligations accrued before subsection (g) was added by the Act of May 15, 1951 (ch. 75, 65 Stat. 41 ), is omitted as obsolete.

Memorandum of President of the United States, Oct. 3, 1995 , 60 F.R. 52289 , provided:

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

Section 2451 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 , Public Law 103–355 ([amending former] 41 U.S.C. 15 [see 41 U.S.C. 6305 ]) (“Act”), provides, in part, that “[a]ny contract of the Department of Defense , the General Services Administration , the Department of Energy or any other department or agency of the United States designated by the President, except [contracts where] . . . full payment has been made, may, upon a determination of need by the President, provide or be amended without consideration to provide that payments to be made to the assignee of any moneys due or to become due under [the] contract shall not be subject to reduction or set-off.”

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3 , United States Code, I hereby designate all other departments and agencies of the United States as subject to this provision. Furthermore, I hereby delegate to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, the Administrator of General Services, and the heads of all other departments and agencies, the authority under section 2451 of the Act to make determinations of need for their respective agency’s contracts, subject to such further guidance as issued by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

The authority delegated by this memorandum may be further delegated within the departments and agencies.

This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.