Reasonable interpretation of the term &quot;In connection with&quot; with respect to intellectual property
<p>In the phrase:</p>

<p>"You agree that any rights you may have in any intellectual property produced, invented or conceived by you <strong>in connection with</strong> any of our business whether before or after the date of this document automatically vests in us without any requirement to make payment to you"</p>

<p>What is a reasonable interpretation of <strong>in connection with</strong>? </p>

<p>I suggest you take legal advice on the issue. 
There are two types of these clauses, ones that go too far and aren't enforceable and ones that don't. </p>

<p>I don't know what you do or what you invent, or whether your job is to invent.</p>

<p>However, when it comes to entitlement disputes (that is a dispute between owners/or wannabe owners) between employee and employer the first question we ask is - was it created in the course of employment. Then we ask how it was created - what resources - then we ask if the person was directed to invent that thing etc. </p>

<p>It is not true to say that anything created by employees is automatically owned by their employer. It is more complex than that. We need to look at roles, responsibilities etc. </p>

<p>I would say that in my line of work about 90% of entitlement disputes are caused because the "boss" just wants to use something and thinks it is handy to have - this does not given them entitlement to the invention. </p>

<p>When a clause goes too far, it is seen as a restraint of trade by the Courts and is not enforceable. Employers do not own you or everything you create - just what you create for them in the course of your employment. </p>

contract-law intellectual-property legal-terms australia