Employee Inventions Research Articles

Secret, employee inventions and trade secrets: the relationship of legal subinstitutions

The article presents the results of a comparison of the legal sub-institutions of secretinventions, employee inventions, and commercial secrets according to the current state ofdomestic legal regulation. The purpose of the study was to analyse the relationship betweenthese sub-institutes in national legislation, identify their commonalities and differences,and develop recommendations for improving their effectiveness. The study andcomparison of these legal sub-institutions were conducted by examining the regulatoryand legal framework in this area, particularly legislation in the fields of intellectual property,information, labour, and competitive legal relations. The advantages and disadvantagesof secret inventions, employee inventions, and commercial secrets as mechanismsfor protecting various objects of patent law are highlighted. The analysis concludes thatthese legal sub-institutes are interdisciplinary in nature. Employee and secret inventions,in particular, are sub-institutes within the broader institute of inventions. In a marketeconomy, gaining an advantage through new technologies can be decisive, allowing one tooutpace competitors. Choosing the appropriate methods to protect intellectual propertyrights is crucial to avoiding future issues. The article concludes that the Ukrainian legalsystem requires legislative improvement and modernization to align with contemporarydemands, particularly considering the established protection mechanisms in industriallydeveloped states and international organizations. Specific suggestions for improving thesesub-institutes are proposed, such as the urgent implementation of EU Directives relatedto commercial secrets, which would enhance the protection mechanisms for this area oflaw. Additionally, it is recommended to impose criminal liability for the improper use ofthese legal sub-institutes. The research has further prospects, as a comprehensive analysisand comparison of these legal sub-institutes with their counterparts in industrially developedcountries would be beneficial.

Ex-ante estimating of additional remuneration for employee inventions: explanatory role of the weighted patent family size indicator

Ex-ante estimating of additional remuneration for employee inventions: explanatory role of the weighted patent family size indicator

독일에서 직무발명 보상의 산정 및 그 기준

In Germany, company employees who make invention during the term of their employment, so-called “service inventions”, are subject to the German Act on Employee Inventions, which regulates the rights and obligations of both employees and employers. There are statutory guidelines as to the amount of compensation the inventor should be paid. The compensation due to the inventor is based on the standard formula V = E x A, where V is the annual compensation, E is the so-called “invention value”, and A is the so-called employer’s “share factor” in the invention. First of all the invention value E is calculated. Generally this is assessed using the licence analogy. Secondly, the so-called share factor A is decided on a points’ basis. Points are awarded according to the circumstances surrounging the task which led to the invention, how the problem was solved, and the employee’s tasks and position in the company.

TOWARDS FAIR DIVISION OF BENEFITS FROM PATENT RIGHTS: REMUNERATION FOR EMPLOYEE-INVENTOR IN POLISH LEGAL SYSTEM AND IN COMPARATIVE CONTEXT

Remuneration for the employee-inventor is the key element to stimulate the development both in business and academic units for the beneficiary of the whole society. The first element that should be taken into consideration in the given analysis is to whom right to obtain patent belong and later - in case the right to patent belong to employer - whether and how employee-inventor should be remunerated. Both of those problems are differently set in different jurisdictions. Polish law adhere to the systems which by statute prescribes right to obtain patent in case of employee inventions to employer and also by statue guarantee remuneration for employee-inventor both in business and academic environment. The conclusion of the article is that despite of the fact that the statutory provisions are reasonably and fairly constructed there in certain elements they are vague and left much space for the internal regulation of economic entities and higher educational institutions, which at the end of the day might change the overall assessment and work better for those entities than for the employees.

Industrial Property Arbitration in Turkey: An Analysis in Comparison with Swiss Law

Abstract Given the difficulties in international intellectual property litigation, such as jurisdictional issues, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, arbitration and other dispute resolution mechanisms may be better tailored to resolve intellectual property disputes. Under Swiss law, these disputes are arbitrable to such an extent that arbitral tribunals seated in Switzerland and state courts are equally competent to rule on the validity of industrial property rights. This paper assesses the arbitrability of industrial property disputes under Turkish law, under which there is neither a specific statutory provision nor an official decision regarding their arbitrability. The paper concludes that disputes arising from industrial property rights should be considered arbitrable under Turkish law, provided that for disputes over the validity of industrial property rights, the arbitral tribunal decides on the industrial property rights’ enforceability and the arbitral award has an inter partes effect. Although submitting industrial property disputes, especially those on employee inventions, to arbitration may in certain cases not be accepted due to the intention to protect the weaker party, employees are obliged to resort to arbitration for the resolution of their employee invention disputes under Turkish law. This paper also examines the resolution of employee invention disputes by way of arbitration from a comparative perspective.

Legal Protection of Employee Invention for Patent Inventors in the Working Relationship

The development of intellectual property rights is influenced by technological developments. One form of intellectual property is a patent that is produced in the form of inventions or new inventions by inventor employees who work in the official or government or private sector. The purposes of this study are: (1) To find out the doctrine used in patent renewal, (2) Legal protection against employee invention for employees in the government sphere with private companies, and (3) Patent ownership arrangements for inventor employees in Asian countries. The research method used is normative juridical by using secondary data. This study’s results indicate differences in the protection of ownership of inventions produced by inventors or employees from several countries, such as Indonesia, Japan and the United States. Some patents are owned by the inventor’s employees and some are owned by the employer.

Legal Protection of Public Employee Inventions

Legal Protection of Public Employee Inventions

영국 직무발명제도에 대한 연구

1977년 개정 영국 특허법은 직무발명제도에 대하여 최초로 규정하였다. 영국직무발명제도의 특징은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 영국 직무발명제도는 직무발명의 인정요건을 세 가지 유형으로 나누어 광범위하게 규정하고 있어서, 영국에서 종업원이 고용기간 중에 완성한 발명의 대부분은 사용자에게 귀속되고 있다. 둘째, 영국 직무발명제도는 직무발명의 권리귀속에 대하여 ‘사용자주의’를 취하고 있기 때문에, 영국에서 종업원이 고용기간 중에 완성한 발명이 직무발명에 해당하면, 당해 직무발명에 대한 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리는 사용자에게 귀속된다. 그러나 직무발명으로 인정되는 발명 이외의 발명에 대한 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리는 종업원에게 귀속된다. 셋째, 영국 직무발명제도는 직무발명에 대한 권리가 ‘사용자’에게 귀속된 경우에 종업원에게 ‘직무발명 보상금 청구권’을 인정하고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 종업원이 완성한 발명이 직무발명에 해당하지 아니하여 이에 대한 권리가 ‘종업원’에게 귀속된 경우에도, 종업원이 사용자에게 당해 발명에 대한 권리를 승계시키거나, 당해 발명에 대한 독점적 실시권을 부여한다면, 종업원에게 ‘추가적인 보상금 청구권’을 인정하고 있다. 넷째, 영국 직무발명제도는 직무발명 보상금이 종업원에게 인정되기 위한 요건, 즉 ‘직무발명 보상금 인정요건’을 두고 있다. 특히 영국에서 직무발명 보상금이 인정되려면, ‘현저한 이익 요건’과 ‘정당성 요건’이 만족되어야 하는데, 실제 소송에서 종업원이 ‘현저한 이익 요건’을 증명하기가 어렵다. 이런 측면에서 영국 특허법에 직무발명제도가 성문화된 이후 현재까지, 영국에서 직무발명 보상금이 산정된 판결로 2009년에 선고된 영국 특허법원의 Kelly 판결과 2019년에 선고된 영국 대법원의 Shanks 판결이 있을 뿐이다.

Yükseköğretim Kurumlarında Gerçekleştirilen Buluşlar

Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu ile yükseköğretim kurumlarında mevcut buluş potansiyelinin ortaya çıkarılması ve ekonomiye kazandırılması için bilimsel araştırma ve çalışmalar sonucu ortaya çıkan buluşlar üzerinde yükseköğretim kurumuna hak sahipliği talebinde bulunma imkanı verilmiştir. Buluş potansiyeli en yüksek kurumlardan biri olan yükseköğretim kurumlarında hak sahipliği konusunun çözümü, buluş sahibi ve yükseköğretim kurumu açısından önemlidir. Mevcut buluşların patent sürecine dahil edilmesi ve ticarileştirilmesi ile ülke ekonomisi ve toplum yarar sağlar. Patent hakkının korunması, ülke içinde ekonomik büyümeyi beraberinde getirerek, teknoloji üretimi ile transferine uygun zemin hazırlar. Yükseköğretim kurumlarında gerçekleştirilen buluş üzerinde hak sahipliğinin belirlenmesi, başvuru ve bildirim yükümlülüğü, hak sahipliği kararına itiraz, hakkın devri ve buluştan elde edilecek gelirin paylaşımı Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu ve Çalışan Buluşlarına, Yükseköğretim Kurumlarında Gerçekleştirilen Buluşlara ve Kamu Destekli Projelerde Ortaya Çıkan Buluşlara Dair Yönetmelik çerçevesinde incelenecektir.

Ownership of Employee Inventions in Nigeria: Need for a Paradigm Shift

In the current knowledge-driven, private sector oriented economic development paradigm, Intellectual property (IP) is the backbone of any modern organisation. Technological development combined with globalisation have brought the issue of IP protection to the fore. The incentive theory regarding the patent system holds that incentives are given to enable ‘innovation’. The issue of ownership of employee inventions has continued to generate debates globally. The issue of ownership of employee inventions brings about an intersection of employment law and intellectual property rights. While IP law provide the basic rules governing ownership, this can be modified by contract between the employer and the employee. Keywords: Employee inventions, Intellectual property rights, Ownership. DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/117-08 Publication date: January 31 st 2022

Harmonization of Employee Invention Laws: The Black Hole of the EU's Innovation Policy

Harmonization of Employee Invention Laws: The Black Hole of the EU's Innovation Policy

დასაქმებულის უფლება შრომითი ურთიერთობის პროცესში შექმნილ გამოგონებაზე (ქართულ - გერმანული საპატენტო კანონმდებლობის შესაბამისად)

Creative activity, which ends with the creation of intellectual property objects, are mostly carried out by individuals employed in various private sectors or scientists working in higher education/research institutions. Therefore, the question who is the owner of the intellectual property object (invention), employee/inventor, whose direct participation with and usage of intellectual labor, the object was created by, or the employer, whose material technical base, experience and the other resources were used to create the invention, does not lose relevance. Georgia belongs to the continental, i.e. Romano-Germanic legal system. Modern Georgian intellectual property law has undergone a very interesting path of development since the restoration of independence. It should be noted that Georgia is the first country from the former Soviet republics to establish a national patent agency in 1992 (12,246). In this article, the authors focus on the basic regulations of Georgian and German patent law that regulate the ownership of an invention created by employees. As it is known, in Georgia the issue is resolved by the „Patent Law“, while in Germany, in addition to the patent law, there is an „Employee Inventions Act“. The scientific article consists of an introduction, a main part and a conclusion. The introduction presents the urgency of the legal problem. The main part, on the one hand, discusses the legal status of inventions created by employees, gives the relationship between patent law and labor law on this issue (on the example of Georgian legislation) and, on the other hand, the authors analyze the German ,,Employee Inventions Act“, which we find a detailed arrangement of an issue of interest to us in. The law is structured in such a way that the balance between the interests of the employee and the employer is maximally maintained, the rule of compensation is provided, a distinction is made between service and free inventions, and ways of resolving disputes between the parties are provided. The legal basis for arbitration is in the foreground. There is also a court of law under the jurisdiction of which these disputes are considered.

Inventor Reward Schemes and Innovation Opportunism: A Contingency Perspective (WITHDRAWN)

In this paper, we develop a contingency theory of how the design of inventor reward schemes and characteristics of employee inventors collectively shape corporate innovation performance. We hypothesize that extra-organizational constraints and asymmetrically short-termist tradeoffs codified in the design of inventor rewards schemes will likely incentivize innovation opportunism; we also hypothesize that these designs will further incentivize innovation opportunism by negatively interacting with employee inventors’ motivational proclivities, namely those formed by their time-in-role and search routines, towards short-termist rewards. We test our hypotheses based on difference-in-differences models leveraging micro-data about employee inventors in China and the effect of introduction of a prominent type of inventor reward scheme, imposed by Chinese patent law on state-owned enterprises, on corporate innovation performance. Our work extends the contingency theory of compensation schemes to corporate innovation contexts by explicating when inventor reward schemes tend to incentivize opportunism and thereby misalign with firm strategies targeting advanced inventions and broad-scope patenting.

The Protection of Employee Inventions on Private Employment Relationship in Pharmaceutical Industry in Indonesia

The reciprocal relationship between company and employees such as in the pharmaceutical industry then creates a dilemma for solving the problem regarding the employee responsibility to the company, and company recognition for employee invention. This paper will discuss and analyze the problems of employee ownership of inventions in patent law regime in Indonesia, compared with those in developed countries. In Indonesia, the settings of employee inventions are not dealt explicitly in Indonesian patent law such as in the Patent Law of 1986 and the latest, the Patent Law of 2016. The Law set implicitly that employee inventions are inventions that resulted in employment status or inventions generated using the employer’s data and facilities. The results showed that the settings of ownership of employee inventions that clearly rely on the doctrine of hired to invent and shop-rights which was adopted in the advanced industrial countries prove to be conducive to create a supportive climate of innovation and the progress of scientific and technological invention by workers, and by the company. The concept of employee inventions that have not been expressly provided in the Patent Law of 2016 and has not yet adopted the doctrine of hired to invent or shop rights is considered more profitable to employers or companies, than to employees, to have exclusive rights to the patent and exploit freely on the invention produced.

SHANKS v UNILEVER PLC (NO. 2)

Abstract Patents – Employee inventions – Compensation – Patents exploited by licensing – Statutory construction – Meaning of “the benefit of which the employer has derived … from the patent” – Whether corporation tax to be deducted – Whether benefit outstanding – Identification of employer’s undertaking – Assessment of fair share for employee – Relevance of the time value of money – Appeal to Supreme Court

대학 및 대학창업기업의 겸직종업원에 의해 창출된 직무발명 및 특허에 대한 두 사용자의 권리지분율 산정방법

대학교수 홍길동이 대학창업기업을 창업하는 사례가 적지 않다. 그 경우, 홍길동은 대학교수의 직위와 대학창업기업의 종업원의 직위를 겸직하게 되므로, 홍길동이 창출하는 직무발명의 권리관계가 복잡해진 다. 특히, 그 직무발명이 큰 수익을 유발하는 경우 대학과 대학창업기업 사이에 분쟁이 촉발된다. 실제로, 서울대-툴젠 사건이 발생하였는데, 그 사건을 양측이 어느 정도라도 납득할 수 있게 해결하는 특허법적 방안이 제시된 바가 없다. 이 글은 유사한 사안에서의 해결방안을 다음 과 같이 제시한다. 첫째, 일반적으로는 대학(대학교수 홍길동 포함) 및 대학창업기업(종업원 홍길동 포함)이 같이 공헌하여 해당 직무발명을 창출한다. 즉, 해당 특허에 대해 대학 또는 대학창업기업이 지분을 전혀 가지지 못하는 사례는 매우 드물다. 둘째, 그 공헌된 바(input)에 비례하 여 해당 직무발명, 나아가 특허에 대한 지분율(output)을 산정하여야 한다. 셋째, 그 공헌에는 발명자의 창작적 요소 외에 연구비, 기자재, 보조인력, 기존 지식 등의 비창작적 요소가 포함된다. 발명의 창출을 위해 발명자의 창작적 공헌만 필요한 것이 아니라 비창작적 요소의 공헌도 필요한 것이다. 넷째, 전체 발명의 창출에 비창작적 요소가 공헌하는 비율은 판례의 평균치에 따르면 80%에 달하며, 그 수치는 해당 기술분야, 해당 연구개발의 특수한 상황 등에 따라 조정되어야 한다. 다섯째, 발명의 창출까지 대학 및 대학창업기업이 비창작적으로 공헌한 비율, 각 X% 및 Y%, 대학의 발명자 및 대학창업기업의 발명자의 창작 적 공헌의 합을 각 P% 및 Q%로 파악한 후, 비창작적 요소의 공헌도 80%를 적용하여 대학 및 대학창업기업의 특허권 지분율을 산정하는 방법을 다음 표와 같이 제시한다.

Self-Disclosure and Confidential Responsibility of Professor Regarding Employee Invention

Self-Disclosure and Confidential Responsibility of Professor Regarding Employee Invention

Whether or not an ‘Electronic Document’ Belongs the Concept of a Document – Focusing on Notice by a ‘Document’ for Succession of an Employee Invention –

Recently, a series of legal amendments have been made to establish the institutional foundation for the purpose to realize paperless society. In that context, the Framework Act on Electronic Documents and Transactions has been enacted and grants the juridical effect to an electronic document, which is the same effect as a paper document. Nonetheless, the Korea Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of ‘in writing,’ or a document, that was stipulated in other individual Acts only as a paper document, thus causing a confusion in the application of the legal theory regarding the document. Such a confusion may also happen in interpreting what the document that is stipulated under the Invention Promotion Act would exactly mean. Under the Korea Patent Act, an invention originally belongs to the inventor(s) who has invented the invention. Since an employee invention is also one of that inventions, the invention also originally belongs to the employee. Thus, a company (employer) must success that employ invention by notifying to the employee in a right time to obtain a right to patent. Importantly, the notice should be given by a document to the employee. That is, it is very important to clarify whether an electronic document is permitted as an appropriate way for the notification by the employer under the Invention Promotion Act. While there has been discussion to amend the Invention Promotion Act to solve problems arising from a delay in time due to the gap between completion of an employee invention and notification by a company of the intend to succeed that employee invention, however, there has been no discussion regarding whether the document contains the electronic document along with a paper document. Thus, this article examined regarding whether a current concept of the document would embrace the electronic document. This article has figured out that the nature of a document takes into account an idea or an intention contained in the medium as important rather than what type of the recording medium should be to be the document, and the concept of a document is not a fixed concept, but can change flexibly to reflect a certain situation from time to time under dynamic statutory interpretation. However, this article has also figured out that the exact meaning of a document that is stipulated in the Invention Promotion Act is not clear because there was no specific clue in the legislative history for the amended Invention Promotion Act to support an intent to embrace an electronic document. Therefore, this article suggests a legislative method for the amendment of the Invention Promotion Act not only to prevent any confusion in interpreting the meaning of the document, but to clarify that an electronic document has been contained in the concept of the document. Further, this article suggests that ‘in writing,’ which is stipulated, and also used along with a document, in the Invention Promotion Act and the Regulation on the Disposition, Management and Compensation for an Employee Invention of a Public Officer, which is the Enforcement Decree of the Invention Promotion Act, be amended by legislation to remove the term of the ‘in writing’ and insert the term of a document, including the term of an electronic document.

Consent of Patent Application on an Invention Jointly Owned by a Private Company and a Public Institute: From Joint Owner Consent Principle to Joint Owner Individual Principle

Section 44 of the Korea Patent Act prescribes that if the right to obtain a patent is jointly owned, a patent application is only possible upon consent of all joint owners. This paper coins this jurisprudence as “joint owner consent principle”. Such countries which apply this principle are exemplified as Germany, Japan, China as well as Korea. This paper aims to suggest a method to solve a deadlock situation where the right to obtain a patent is jointly owned by both a private company and a public institute and the private company cannot file a patent application due to objection of the public institute. According to analysis of foreign jurisprudence, in the U.S.A., Canada, Australia, India, etc., each joint owner can file a patent application notwithstanding other joint owners’ objection. This paper coins this jurisprudence as “joint owner individual principle”. This paper suggests the following reasons why the joint owner individual principle is more reasonable than the joint owner consent principle. Firstly, if all joint owners do not consent, maintenance of trade secret is almost impossible. Secondly, if a joint owner files a patent application without others’ consent, the application may result in the same situation where all joint owner are named as applicants. Thirdly, filing of a patent application can be interpreted as a maintaining action. Fourthly, section 30 of the Korea Patent Act would better be utilized under the joint owner individual principle. Fifthly, because section 99 demands consents of all joint owners for share assignment, section 44 could be utilized to force involuntary consents. This paper proclaims that the “joint owner consent principle” be changed to the “joint owner individual principle” and to realize the proclaim a new subsection be inserted into section 44, which reads as: “if one or more of joint owners object to the patent application or is not reached after due diligent, (an)other joint owner(s) can file a patent application.” Furthermore, it had better clarify that each applicant can request patent denial review trial without consent of other applicants in section 132. Considering such a situation where above proposals may not be passed in the National Assembly or where before legislation in the National Assembly, the deadlock problem could be solved by an agreement (contract) by the private company and the public institute. If the two become joint owner of a patent, both may face inherent risk of the joint ownership. To minimize such a risk, a kind of model agreement could be suggested. The model agreement may on the one hand allow the private company to freely utilize the patented invention and to maximize profits and on the other hand allow the public institute to receive allocation of the profits achieved by the private company. The amount of allocated remuneration could be calculated by a corresponding method to calculate that of employee invention remuneration.

발명자에 의한 직무발명 공개의 사용자 영업비밀의 침해 여부 - 대법원 2012도6676 판결에 대한 비판 -

직무발명의 개발과정 중 또는 개발완료 후 그 개발자에 의해 개발된 내용이 공개되는 상황이 발생될 수 있다. 대상 판결(대법원 2012도6676 판결)의 사안은 직무발명의 완성 후 사용자에게 승계되기 전에 발명자 가 그 직무발명을 공개한 것이다. 그 사안을 다룬 사건에서 1심법원 및 항소심법원은 영업비밀 침해죄를 인정하였으나, 대법원은 직무발명 의 완성 후 그것이 사용자에게 승계되기 전이라면 그 발명자(종업원)가 사용자의 동의 없이 그것을 공개하였더라도 그 공개행위가 사용자의 영업비밀을 침해하는 죄에 해당하지 않는다고 판단하였다. 필자들은 하급심 판결들을 지지하고 대상 판결을 비판한다. 대상 판결의 결론은 연구개발의 중간물을 영업비밀로 열심히 관리하는 사용자의 노고를 부정하는 것이며, 현장의 실무를 외면하는 것이다. 그 비판을 위하여 이 글은 우선 주요국의 법리를 분석하였는데, 제도적 차이로 인하여 주요국의 법리가 대상 판결의 비판에 도움이 되지 않음을 발견하였다. 그래서 추가적으로 이론적 분석을 시도하였다. 이 글은 우선 대법원이 법적용의 오류를 범하였다고 주장하고, 나아가 완성된 직무발명뿐만 아니라 직무발명 개발과정에서 생산된 중간물도 영업비밀로 인정될 수 있음을 확인하였다. 나아가 영업비밀보호법의 측면에서 직무발명 개발과정에서 생산된 중간물인 영업비밀의 경우에는 4가지 이유로 그 것이 사용자에게 원시적으로 귀속된다고 주장한다. 현행 직무발명 승계 제도의 불합리함이 대상 판결의 오류에 기여하였다고 생각된다. 즉 직 무발명 승계제도를 개선하여 직무발명이 완성된 때 회사가 자동적으로 그 권리를 승계받을 수 있게 하면 대상 판결의 오류는 발생할 여지가 없게 된다. 관련된 법 개정안이 국회에서 빨리 통과되기를 기대한다. 그러한 법개정의 전이라도 법원은 완성된 직무발명이 영업비밀성 요건 을 충족한다면 그러한 무단공개를 영업비밀 침해로 인정해야 한다. 대 상 판결의 법리는 연구개발의 중간물을 공개하는 행위는 영업비밀 침 해로 인정하면서도 연구개발의 완성물인 직무발명을 공개하는 행위는 영업비밀 침해로 인정하지 않는 비상식적인 오류를 초래한다.