At this point, some people may ask, why did the plaintiff lose the lawsuit despite the fact that the technology development was commissioned by the plaintiff company with money?

The judgment is mainly based on the contract signed by both parties. There are two contracts between the inventor and the plaintiff company, but in these two contracts, there is no clear indication of the working relationship between the inventor and the plaintiff company (i.e. there is no evidence to prove that the working relationship between the inventor and the plaintiff company is a labor relationship or a temporary working relationship), nor is there any expression of ownership of the relevant technical achievements formed based on this working relationship.

Although the plaintiff company provided the inventor with monthly salary and housing allowance, paid social security, reimbursed travel expenses, and listed the inventor as the new product development director and product manager, there were also weekly reports and exchanges in their work. However, the Supreme Court held that the inventor’s identity as a university teacher has not changed; The above evidence is insufficient to establish a labor relationship or temporary work relationship in the sense of “service invention” between the inventor and the plaintiff company, and cannot serve as a legal and factual basis for the plaintiff company to claim ownership of the patent in question on the grounds of service invention.

The existence of a labor relationship or temporary work relationship between the inventor and the unit is a prerequisite for recognizing a service invention. The criterion for determining labor relations or temporary work relations lies in whether the unit has obtained the right of labor control over the inventor, including the right of labor control for creative labor in completing the invention and creation. If there is only a general cooperative relationship between the unit and the inventor, and they do not have the right to dispose of the inventor’s labor, the relevant inventions and creations of the inventor do not belong to service inventions and creations.

According to the Patent Law, the patent (application) rights in the process of cooperation or commissioned research and development shall be subject to the contractual agreement. If there is no agreement, the person who completes the invention or creation can be the patent applicant.

Revelation

This case serves as a warning to us:

1、 When signing a contract, it is important to agree on the ownership of intellectual property rights. Otherwise, even a hot heart cannot change the legal provisions, resulting in an awkward situation of spending money and suffering losses.

2、 Enterprises and other market entities that want to engage in innovative research and development can refer to the content of the “Enterprise Intellectual Property Management Specification GB/T29490” (national standard) and “Innovation Management System ISO56001” (international standard) to independently improve internal management.

【 Disclaimer 】 The above is the content compiled by the editor for learning and exchange. Please feel free to correct. If you encounter any issues with the content or copyright of your work, please contact the editor in the background in a timely manner, and we will handle them promptly and properly. If you would like to learn more about intellectual property content, please feel free to leave a comment. We will listen carefully and work together! Thank you for your attention!