California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 2870 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:

(1)Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer’s business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or

(2)Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.

(b)To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Iconix, Inc. v. Tokuda, 457 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Iconix, Inc. v. Tokuda, 457 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2006). · cites it 15× “e alone or with others; any and all patents, patents pending, copyrights, moral rights, trademarks and any other intellectual property rights therein; and any and all improvements, modifications, derivative works from, other rights in and claims related to any of the foregoing…”

Whitewater West Indus. v. Alleshouse, 981 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “The court first rejected the defendants’ contention that the Agreement’s assignment provision is invalid under California law—specifically, under California Labor Code §§ 2870, 2872, and under California Business and Profes- sions Code § 16600.”

Mattel, Inc. v. Mga Ent., Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 911 (C.D. Cal. 2011). · cites it 2× “The parties’ exclusion of inventions defined by Cal. Labor Code § 2870 4 did not necessarily evidence a mutual intent to capture everything else.”

Enreach Tech., Inc. v. Embedded Internet Solutions, Inc., 403 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2005). · cites it 2× “The agreement also incorporated California Labor Code section 2870, which states as follows: Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply…”

Cubic Corp. v. Marty, 66 A.L.R. 4th 1115 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). “” (Lab. Code, § 2870.) The Legislature has also provided such an agreement cannot be made a condition of continued employment.”

Freedom Wireless, Inc. v. Boston Commc'ns Grp., Inc., 220 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D. Mass. 2002). “Thus, public policy supports an interpretation of the invention assignment contract between Mr.”

Imi-Tech Corp. v. Gagliani, 691 F. Supp. 214 (S.D. Cal. 1987). “, Cal.Labor Code § 2870. 3. Under applicable Ninth Circuit law, in order to obtain a preliminary injunction, Imi-Tech must demonstrate either: “(1) A combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that serious questions are raised…”

Shande v. Zoox, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 7× “§ 501 ; (4) violations of contract and public 10 policy in violation of California Labor Code § 2870; (5) intentional interference with contractual 11 relations; (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; and (7) violation of 12 California’s unfair…”

Unknown, 375 F. App'x 12. · cites it 2× “Cal. Lab.Code § 2870 (West 1979). In Cubic, the appellant argued that where the other conditions of the statute were met, he need only satisfy condition (a) or (b)— but not both — to render the assignment provision unenforceable.”

Fibrogen, Inc. v. Hangzhou Andao Pharm. LTD. (N.D. Cal. 2024). “20 21 Cal. Labor Code § 2870 (a). 22 FibroGen asserts that because the first subclause copies language from Section 2870(a), 23 and Section 2870(a) can only be read to apply during the term of employment, the subclause limits 24 assignment of inventions conceived of during…”

Lazares v. Shopify (USA), Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025). “Plaintiff 11 further alleges that the IP Agreement does not contain the notice required under 12 California Labor Code § 2870 for agreements that require an employee to assign his 13 rights in any invention to his employer.”

Gonzalez v. Aten Tech. CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). “At oral argument, Aten’s counsel suggested the seven-page document was not truly one-sided because in a single sentence it acknowledges that any idea or invention will not be considered an “Employer Invention” if it “qualifies fully under the provisions of California Labor Code…”

— Cal. Labor Code § 2870(a) — 1 case

Whitewater West Indus. v. Alleshouse, 981 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “The court first rejected the defendants’ contention that the Agreement’s assignment provision is invalid under California law—specifically, under California Labor Code §§ 2870, 2872, and under California Business and Profes- sions Code § 16600.”

— Cal. Labor Code § 2870(b) — 1 case

Iconix, Inc. v. Tokuda, 457 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2006). “e alone or with others; any and all patents, patents pending, copyrights, moral rights, trademarks and any other intellectual property rights therein; and any and all improvements, modifications, derivative works from, other rights in and claims related to any of the foregoing…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.