Olympus Optical Co., Ltd v. Tanaka

作者:楼仙英 姚迪 金杜律师事务所知识产权

新修订的《中华人民共和国专利法》(1)(“专利法”)和《中华人民共和国专利法实施细则》(2)(“实施细则”)中对职务发明中发明人奖励与报酬进行了修改,在鼓励技术创新实现产业化的大背景下,这种改进充分发挥了制度在鼓励科技开发与技术创新以促进社会生产力发展方面的积极作用,但同时,特别是在日本蓝光案以7千万人民币和解结案的情况下,它也无疑给用人单位在技术创新方面的奖励和报酬管理制度上带来了一定的影响与挑战。

例如,根据《实施细则》第七十六条的规定,被授予专利权的单位可以与发明人约定或者在其依法制定的规章制度中规定奖励、报酬的方式和数额。因此,很多公司便纷纷在劳动合同中约定或在公司规章制度中规定,“双方确认并同意雇员的奖励和报酬包括在工资中”或“双方确定并同意雇员不要求任何奖励和报酬”等。其认为,只要合同基于双方意思自治,就不会存在风险。但在对各国职务发明制度进行比较研究后,我们认为这样的安排有很大风险,现分析如下:

为方便讨论上述问题,先简化问题如下:若雇主基于雇员的职务发明获得的巨大商业利润与雇员所获得的奖励与报酬完全不符时,雇员是否有权请求法院或仲裁机构变更或撤销合同,并请求额外的奖励和报酬?

Continue Reading 防止职工职务发明诉讼

By Cecilia Lou and Steven Yao King & Wood’s Intellectual Property Group

The Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China(1)("Patent Law") and Regulations for the Implementation of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China(2) ("Implementing Regulations") has drawn our attention to rewards and remuneration for inventors. The Patent Law stipulates that employers must pay reasonable rewards and remuneration to inventors of a service invention and the Implementing Regulations explicitly address the amount payable. For purposes of encouraging technological innovation and industrialization, the change is sure to play a positive role in motivating employee initiatives and promoting social productivity. However, it will also bring certain challenges to many employers in terms of compliance with reward and remuneration issues in China, especially when the Blue LED case in Japan resulted in a 70 million RMB settlement.

The key issue of concern to employers is: Whether the huge commercial benefits acquired by the employer based on a service invention made by its employee do not correspond to the remuneration received from the employer due to the creation of the service invention agreed in the remuneration clause in China, whether the employee shall be entitled to request the court to modify or even revoke the remuneration clause and request some additional remuneration?

Continue Reading Dodging Service Invention Disputes