Which statement best captures the court's reasoning about the sufficiency of future acts to convey ownership in the same context?

Which statement best captures the court's reasoning about the sufficiency of future acts to convey ownership in the same context?

• A. Future acts by the inventor are sufficient to convey title.
• B. Future acts by the inventor are not sufficient to convey title.
• C. The employer must obtain a third-party assignment.
• D. The inventor retains ownership unless the agreement explicitly transfers it.

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that ownership of inventions must be transferred by a present assignment, not by promises to act in the future. A court will not treat future acts or promises to assign as a valid conveyance of title. An inventor starts with the rights, and a transfer to another party only occurs when there is an actual, signed assignment covering the inventions (or a work-for-hire arrangement that vests rights immediately). Merely promising to assign later creates an executory obligation but does not vest ownership in the employer at the time of creation, leaving the inventor as the holder of the rights until the future assignment is executed. The other options either give too much weight to future acts, require an unnecessary third-party assignment, or assume ownership will automatically shift unless explicitly stated, which isn’t how these transfers are treated in this context.

The main idea is that ownership of inventions must be transferred by a present assignment, not by promises to act in the future. A court will not treat future acts or promises to assign as a valid conveyance of title. An inventor starts with the rights, and a transfer to another party only occurs when there is an actual, signed assignment covering the inventions (or a work-for-hire arrangement that vests rights immediately). Merely promising to assign later creates an executory obligation but does not vest ownership in the employer at the time of creation, leaving the inventor as the holder of the rights until the future assignment is executed. The other options either give too much weight to future acts, require an unnecessary third-party assignment, or assume ownership will automatically shift unless explicitly stated, which isn’t how these transfers are treated in this context.