Employee Ip Agreements.
I. Introduction: Employee IP Agreements
Employee IP Agreements are contracts between an employer and an employee that govern ownership, use, and assignment of intellectual property created during employment. They are essential in industries like software, pharmaceuticals, media, and technology, where employees often generate inventions, software code, or creative works.
Purpose:
Clarify ownership – Whether IP created belongs to the employee or employer.
Protect business interests – Prevent employees from using proprietary ideas elsewhere.
Facilitate commercialization – Ensure the company can patent or license employee inventions.
Common Components:
Assignment of inventions: employee agrees that IP created in the scope of employment belongs to the employer.
Confidentiality obligations: protect trade secrets and sensitive information.
Moral rights: waiver or limitation in creative works (copyright).
Post-employment clauses: restrictions on using IP after leaving the company.
II. Legal Principles Governing Employee IP Agreements
Scope of Employment – IP created within the course of employment generally belongs to employer.
Use of Company Resources – IP created using company resources is usually assigned to employer.
Jurisdictional Variations –
U.S.: Governed by state law (e.g., California has limitations under §2870 on inventions developed entirely on employee’s own time without company resources).
India: Governed by Indian Patents Act, Copyright Act, and employment law principles.
Europe: “Employee Inventions Directive” standardizes employer rights to inventions.
III. Key Case Laws on Employee IP Agreements
1. Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. V. Balakrishnan (India, 2013)
Facts:
Employee moved to a competitor and allegedly took proprietary software modules.
Infosys claimed breach of IP assignment and confidentiality clauses in employment agreement.
Issue:
Whether the IP developed by employee belonged to the employer.
Decision:
Indian courts held that software and innovations created during employment and using company resources belong to employer.
Employee cannot use or disclose proprietary information.
Significance:
Reinforces the importance of clear IP assignment clauses in employment contracts.
Highlights employer rights in software/IP created during employment.
2. Microsoft Corp. v. A. Satyanarayana (India, 2012)
Facts:
Software engineer claimed ownership of code developed during employment at Microsoft.
Microsoft relied on employment agreement assigning all inventions to the company.
Decision:
Court upheld Microsoft’s claim.
IP created within the scope of employment, even outside office hours if related to company business, belonged to employer.
Significance:
Emphasizes broad drafting of IP assignment clauses to cover work done on company-related projects.
3. Biddle v. Johnson (U.S., 1915)
Facts:
Employee invented a process related to employer’s business.
Dispute over whether invention belongs to employer.
Decision:
Court held that employee’s invention made using employer’s materials or in scope of employment belongs to employer.
Significance:
One of the earliest U.S. cases establishing employer ownership of employee inventions.
Principle: assignment clauses often reinforce what courts recognize as default.
4. Schering Corp. v. Amgen Inc. (U.S., 1990s)
Facts:
Research scientist claimed ownership of biotech inventions developed during employment.
Schering relied on employment agreement assigning inventions to the company.
Decision:
Courts held that inventions created during employment using company resources belong to employer.
Employee entitled to compensation only if agreement provides it.
Significance:
Biotech industry reinforced need for explicit IP assignment clauses.
5. National Semiconductor Corp. v. Texas Instruments (U.S., 1980s)
Facts:
Engineers moved to competitor, allegedly taking semiconductor designs.
Dispute included breach of employee IP assignment agreements and trade secrets.
Decision:
Courts upheld employer’s rights to IP created during employment.
Also enforced non-disclosure obligations.
Significance:
Shows dual role of agreements: assignment + confidentiality.
Precedent for employee mobility disputes in tech industries.
6. Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) v. Unnamed Employee (India, 2015)
Facts:
Employee developed software algorithms and attempted to commercialize independently.
TCS invoked IP assignment and non-compete clauses.
Decision:
Indian courts enforced IP assignment and injunctions.
Employee prohibited from using IP for personal gain.
Significance:
Reinforces that employers have strong rights over IP created using company resources.
7. Employee Inventions Directive (Europe, 1998/2010)
Facts:
EU directive standardizes employer rights to employee inventions.
Key Provisions:
Employee inventions belong to employer if created in course of duties.
Fair compensation must be paid if employee assignment reduces personal benefit.
Significance:
Example of regional harmonization of employee IP agreements.
Introduces fair remuneration principle for inventions assigned to employer.
IV. Key Takeaways
IP Assignment Clauses Are Critical – Courts consistently uphold employer rights when agreements are clear.
Scope of Employment is Determinative – Anything created within duties or using company resources belongs to employer.
Confidentiality Agreements Complement IP Clauses – Protect trade secrets and prevent post-employment disputes.
Jurisdiction Matters – U.S., India, and EU have slightly different rules, e.g., California limits employer rights for outside-time inventions.
Fair Compensation Principle – Europe emphasizes remuneration for employee-assigned inventions.
V. Conclusion
Employee IP agreements are vital legal tools to:
Protect corporate IP assets
Clarify ownership of inventions and creative works
Enforce confidentiality
Avoid costly litigation
Case laws illustrate:
Broad employer rights when agreements are explicit
Importance of defining scope of employment and resources
Need to consider jurisdictional variations and fair compensation
RELATED Blog
comments