## Facts

- Ingersoll-Rand manufactured underground mining equipment, including a “split-set” mine roof friction stabilizer.
- Armand Ciavatta worked for Ingersoll-Rand and became manufacturing and quality-control manager for the stabilizer product line; he was not employed as a designer or inventor.
- Ciavatta signed a “Proprietary Matter Agreement” requiring assignment to Ingersoll-Rand of any invention conceived or developed within one year after termination if “attributable to work done” during employment and related to the company’s business or research.
- Ingersoll-Rand terminated Ciavatta in June 1979.
- While unemployed shortly after his termination, Ciavatta developed a new friction stabilizer design and obtained two patents.
- The trial court found Ciavatta did not use or disclose Ingersoll-Rand trade secrets or confidential information, and that relevant technical details were widely known in the industry.
- The Chancery Division nonetheless enforced the holdover clause and ordered assignment of the patents to Ingersoll-Rand.
- The Appellate Division reversed as an unreasonable restraint; the New Jersey Supreme Court granted review to address enforceability of invention “holdover” agreements when no trade secrets are involved.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee invention “holdover” clause requiring assignment of post-termination inventions conceived within a fixed period is enforceable when the invention does not involve the employer’s trade secrets or proprietary information.
2. What reasonableness standard governs enforcement of invention holdover clauses in New Jersey.
3. Whether the clause, as applied to Ciavatta’s patents, protected a legitimate employer interest without undue hardship to the employee and without harm to the public interest.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division.
- The court held invention holdover agreements are not per se invalid, but are enforceable only to the extent they are reasonable.
- Applying the Solari/Whitmyer framework, the court held the holdover clause was unreasonable and unenforceable on these facts.
- The court declined to compel assignment of Ciavatta’s patents to Ingersoll-Rand.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictive covenants, including invention holdover clauses, are enforceable only if they (1) protect a legitimate employer interest, (2) impose no undue hardship on the employee, and (3) do not impair the public interest.
- An employer’s protectable interests may include trade secrets and, in limited circumstances, highly specialized and current confidential information developed at the employer’s expense; an employer has no protectable interest in an employee’s general skills, training, and experience.
- A post-employment invention’s relation to the employer’s general business area, without proof of use of confidential information or derivation from proprietary research, is insufficient to justify compelled assignment.
- Requiring assignment of an invention created after termination using the employee’s own effort and resources can constitute undue hardship.
- Public policy favors free competition, employee mobility, and technological innovation; broad post-employment invention restraints that are not tied to confidential information may be invalid as contrary to the public interest.

## Conclusion

New Jersey treated invention holdover clauses as restrictive covenants subject to the Solari/Whitmyer reasonableness test and refused to enforce a holdover assignment provision where the employer showed no trade-secret or comparable protectable interest, enforcement would unduly burden the former employee, and the restraint would harm competition and innovation.


Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Ciavatta, 110 N.J. 609, 542 A.2d 879 (N.J. 1988)