Wash. Rev. Code » Title 49 · Chapter 49.44
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.140 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign or offer to assign any of the employee's rights in an invention to the employer does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work performed by the employee for the employer. Any provision which purports to apply to such an invention is to that extent against the public policy of this state and is to that extent void and unenforceable.
(2) An employer shall not require a provision made void and unenforceable by subsection (1) of this section as a condition of employment or continuing employment.
(3) If an employment agreement entered into after September 1, 1979, contains a provision requiring the employee to assign any of the employee's rights in any invention to the employer, the employer must also, at the time the agreement is made, provide a written notification to the employee that the agreement does not apply to an invention for which no equipment, supplies, facility, or trade secret information of the employer was used and which was developed entirely on the employee's own time, unless (a) the invention relates (i) directly to the business of the employer, or (ii) to the employer's actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development, or (b) the invention results from any work preformed [performed] by the employee for the employer.
[ 1979 ex.s. c 177 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Waterjet Tech. v. Flow Intern. Corp., 996 P.2d 598 (Wash. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Waterjet Tech. v. Flow Intern. Corp., 996 P.2d 598 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 34× “(Waterjet) is enforceable in whole or in part under RCW 49.44.140 or, *599 alternatively, under Washington common law: 1.”
Waterjet Tech., Inc. v. Flow Int'l Corp., 140 Wash. 2d 313 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 33× “(Wateijet) is enforceable in whole or in part under RCW 49.44.140 or, alternatively, under Washington common law: 1.”
MacHen, Inc. v. Aircraft Design, Inc., 828 P.2d 73 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “The only issues, Machen asserts, are whether there was adequate consideration as a matter of law and whether the agreement was void under RCW 49.44.140(3). Conrad denies signing a confidentiality agreement, but argues even if he did sign the agreement, it would have been almost…”
Citrix Sys., Inc. v. Atm Shafiqul Khalid & Xencare Software, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 13× “Khalid also provided Ponikiewicz with a copy of RCW 49.44.140, Washington’s statute on assignment of employee invention rights, and asked her to evaluate Citrix’s claim of ownership in light of this law.”
Atm Shafiqul Khalid & Xencare Software, Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 13× “Khalid also provided Ponikiewicz with a copy of RCW 49.44.140, Washington’s statute on assignment of employee invention rights, and asked her to evaluate Citrix’s claim of ownership in light of this law.”
Microsoft Corp. v. Atm Shafiqul Khalid (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 9× “4 Khalid contends this “right of first refusal” obligation violates RCW 49.44.140. -4- No. 80508-8-I/5 1. THIN DEVICES TO DELIVER COMPUTING POWER (pending patent application) .”
Khalid v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 4× “The 15 Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint for his remaining claims under the 16 Sherman Act, RICO, and declaratory relief for violation of RCW 49.44.140 and inequitable 17 conduct.”
Khalid v. Citrix Sys. Inc (W.D. Wash. 2021). · cites it 4× “On October 26, 2011, 11 Khalid asked Citrix to reinterpret the employment agreement to align with what he 12 alleged to be violations of RCW 49.44.140. Id. ¶ 19. Citrix declined to do so and 13 maintained that it possessed ownership rights to the patent applications filed by…”
Khalid v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 3× “20 First, Plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment that the “right of first refusal” clause in Section 21 5 violates RCW 49.44.140 is not ripe for adjudication.”
Khalid v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “16 Fourth, Plaintiff argues that the Employee Agreement “illegally combines Employee’s 17 private asset with the corporation’s asset” which “is illegal under RCW 49.44.140 [and] is subject 18 to anti-trust scrutiny.”
Khalid v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 2× “He also seeks declaratory relief that the Employee Agreement violated 14 RCW 49.44.140 and that Microsoft engaged in inequitable conduct.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.140(1) — 8 cases
Waterjet Tech. v. Flow Intern. Corp., 996 P.2d 598 (Wash. 2000). “(Waterjet) is enforceable in whole or in part under RCW 49.44.140 or, *599 alternatively, under Washington common law: 1.”
Waterjet Tech., Inc. v. Flow Int'l Corp., 140 Wash. 2d 313 (Wash. 2000). “(Wateijet) is enforceable in whole or in part under RCW 49.44.140 or, alternatively, under Washington common law: 1.”
Khalid v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2019). “20 First, Plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment that the “right of first refusal” clause in Section 21 5 violates RCW 49.44.140 is not ripe for adjudication.”
Khalid v. Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2020). “The 15 Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint for his remaining claims under the 16 Sherman Act, RICO, and declaratory relief for violation of RCW 49.44.140 and inequitable 17 conduct.”
Citrix Sys., Inc. v. Atm Shafiqul Khalid & Xencare Software, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Khalid also provided Ponikiewicz with a copy of RCW 49.44.140, Washington’s statute on assignment of employee invention rights, and asked her to evaluate Citrix’s claim of ownership in light of this law.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.140(1)(b) — 1 case
Waterjet Tech. v. Flow Intern. Corp., 996 P.2d 598 (Wash. 2000). “(Waterjet) is enforceable in whole or in part under RCW 49.44.140 or, *599 alternatively, under Washington common law: 1.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.140(3) — 5 cases
Waterjet Tech. v. Flow Intern. Corp., 996 P.2d 598 (Wash. 2000). “(Waterjet) is enforceable in whole or in part under RCW 49.44.140 or, *599 alternatively, under Washington common law: 1.”
MacHen, Inc. v. Aircraft Design, Inc., 828 P.2d 73 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “The only issues, Machen asserts, are whether there was adequate consideration as a matter of law and whether the agreement was void under RCW 49.44.140(3). Conrad denies signing a confidentiality agreement, but argues even if he did sign the agreement, it would have been almost…”
Waterjet Tech., Inc. v. Flow Int'l Corp., 140 Wash. 2d 313 (Wash. 2000). “(Wateijet) is enforceable in whole or in part under RCW 49.44.140 or, alternatively, under Washington common law: 1.”
Citrix Sys., Inc. v. Atm Shafiqul Khalid & Xencare Software, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Khalid also provided Ponikiewicz with a copy of RCW 49.44.140, Washington’s statute on assignment of employee invention rights, and asked her to evaluate Citrix’s claim of ownership in light of this law.”
Atm Shafiqul Khalid & Xencare Software, Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Khalid also provided Ponikiewicz with a copy of RCW 49.44.140, Washington’s statute on assignment of employee invention rights, and asked her to evaluate Citrix’s claim of ownership in light of this law.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.140(l)(a)(i) — 1 case
Waterjet Tech., Inc. v. Flow Int'l Corp., 140 Wash. 2d 313 (Wash. 2000). “(Wateijet) is enforceable in whole or in part under RCW 49.44.140 or, alternatively, under Washington common law: 1.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.44.140(l)(b) — 1 case
Waterjet Tech., Inc. v. Flow Int'l Corp., 140 Wash. 2d 313 (Wash. 2000). “(Wateijet) is enforceable in whole or in part under RCW 49.44.140 or, alternatively, under Washington common law: 1.”
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.