직무발명 이중양도 관련 발명진흥법 개정방안
A Study on Dual Assignment of an Employee Invention
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Employee Invention system is for employers to receive benefits from active investments and for employees to enjoy incentives from valuable inventions made by themselves. The Invention Promotion Act gives an employee who has created an invention in the course of performing his or her professional duties the right for a patent for the invention, and after due assignment of the right to the employer, the right to receive reasonable compensation. Nevertheless, there is a loophole in the existing law if an employee willingly gives his or her right for a patent to a third party. In this case, if the third party is a bona fide purchaser for value, employer may not be able to recover the right. This paper firstly points out a problem in the succession of rights for a patent concerning employee’s invention, secondly reviews relevant jurisprudence of the U.S., Japan, and Korea, and finally suggests several measures to enhance efficiency of the system. Most importantly, the Invention Promotion Act must be amended to protect interest of the employer, under the relevant contract, to succeed right for a patent at the very time when the employee invention is created or, at the latest, when the employee reports the invention to the employer.
Abstract
Employee Invention system is for employers to receive benefits from active investments and for employees to enjoy incentives from valuable inventions made by themselves. The Invention Promotion Act gives an employee who has created an invention in the course of performing his or her professional duties the right for a patent for the invention, and after due assignment of the right to the employer, the right to receive reasonable compensation. Nevertheless, there is a loophole in the existing law if an employee willingly gives his or her right for a patent to a third party. In this case, if the third party is a bona fide purchaser for value, employer may not be able to recover the right. This paper firstly points out a problem in the succession of rights for a patent concerning employee’s invention, secondly reviews relevant jurisprudence of the U.S., Japan, and Korea, and finally suggests several measures to enhance efficiency of the system. Most importantly, the Invention Promotion Act must be amended to protect interest of the employer, under the relevant contract, to succeed right for a patent at the very time when the employee invention is created or, at the latest, when the employee reports the invention to the employer.
참고문헌 (31)
- "Patents Granted to Small Entities in Decline" (2010)[URL]
- See The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, "CIPA Guide to the Patents Acts, 7th ed", pp.526~528 (2011), Sweet & Maxwell
- 조영선, "직무발명, In 특허법 주해 Ⅰ", pp.464~ (2010), 박영사
- 이해완, "저작권법", pp.217~ (2007), 박영사
- 최지선, "게임개발자 창작 권리보호 방안에 관한 소고 - 저작권법의 업무상저작물제도를 중심으로", 한국게임학회 논문지, 11(4), pp.73~92 (2011), 한국게임학회
- 中山信弘,, "特許法", pp.66~ (2010), 弘文堂
- 임병웅, "이지 특허법", pp.252~ (2011), 한빛지적소유권센터
- 이풍우, "직무발명제도의 활성화에 관한 법적 연구 : 기업직무발명의 운영실태 및 소송사례를 중심으로", 박사, pp.2010
- 정차호, "2006년 개정 직무발명제도의 제 문제점 및 재개정방안", 창작과 권리, 48, pp.2~34 (2007), 세창출판사
- 강동구, "개정 발명진흥법(법률 제7869호) 제11조 제3항의 문제점", 지식재산 21, 통권 : 95, pp.170~171 (2006), 특허청
- "특허법 제38조 제1항(“특허출원전에 있어서 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리의 승계는 그 승계인이 특 허출원을 하지 아니하면 제3자에게 대항할 수 없다.”)", ~
- 조광훈, "직무발명의 이중양도에 관한 연구", 지식재산21, 통권 : 105, pp.79~ (2008), 특허청
- "FilmTec Corp. v. Allied-Signal Inc., 939 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1991)", ~
- "Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular, 131 S.Ct. 2188", ~ (2011)
- 정차호, "Stanford v. Roche 판결이 재확인한 우리 직무발명제도의 허점", 창작과 권리, (65), pp.1~30 (2011), 세창출판사
- Toshiko Takenaka, "Serious Flaw of Employee Invention Ownership under the Bayh-Dole Act in Stanford v. Roche: Finding the Missing Piece of the Puzzle in the German Employee Invention Act", Texas IntellectualProperty Law Journal, 20 (2011)
- "IpVenture, Inc. v. Prostar Computer, Inc., 503 F.3d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2007)", ~
- "平成19年 10月 30日 判決言渡 平成17年(ワ) 第1238号 大阪地方裁判所", ~
- "平成22年 2月 24日 判決言渡 平成21(ネ)10017号 知的財産高等裁判所", ~
- "「會社がこれを承継する」とは，「會社がこれを承継できる」との趣旨に解すべきである。", ~
- "대법원 2011. 7. 28. 선고 2010도12834 판결", ~ (2011)
- "특허법원 2006. 12. 28. 선고 2005허9282 판결", ~ (2006)
- "6. 15. 선고 65다596 판결", ~ (1965)
- 이승준, "배임죄 행위주체 해석의 방향 -동산 이중양도를 중심으로-", 인권과 정의, (422), pp.99~114 (2011), 대한변호사협회
- 명지성, "부동산 이중매매에 관한 소고", 호원논집, (10), pp.34~ (2003), 고려대학교 대학원
- 홍춘의, "부동산의 이중매매와 제1매수인의 보호, In 김기수 교수 화갑기념 논문집", pp.236~238 (1992), 박영사
- 김상찬, "부동산 이중매매에 관한 연구", 법학연구, (31), pp.119~142 (2008), 한국법학회
- 고상용, "부동산 이중매매와 제1매수인의 보호", 고시연구, (177), pp.207~213 (1988), 고시연구
- 김상묵, "부동산의 이중양도에 관한 고찰", 중앙법학, (4), pp.87~ (2001), 중앙대학교 법학연구소
- 특허청, "특허제도 선진화를 위한 특허법 개정안 공청회", 33~37 (2011)
- "발명진흥법 제13조 제1항", ~