合作完成发明创造专利之权属判定

判断合作完成的发明创造的权利归属,以当事人约定优先为原则。在当事人对专利权属没有约定的情况下,需要考察各合作人对该项发明创造实质性特点是否作出创造性贡献。对该项发明创造的实质性特点作出创造性贡献的人,是该项发明创造的发明人或者设计人,由其依法享有该项发明创造的专利申请权或专利权。对合作完成外观设计的权利归属,可从实质性设计由谁提出、设计方案由谁实现、他人的参与是否使原有方案发生实质性改变等方面进行判断。     

在开源网站上发布他人源代码构成商业秘密侵权

计算机软件源代码属于技术秘密保护的客体,使用人依合同约定使用权利人的软件源代码,应依据合同约定履行保密义务。使用人的技术人员将权利人的软件源代码公开发布到开源网站上,使软件源代码处于对外披露的泄密状态,造成开源网站上的用户可以对该软件源代码进行自由复制、使用、修改或传播,权利人可选择违约或侵权来追究使用人侵害其技术秘密的法律责任。由于软件源代码价值高,侵权人披露开源软件范围广,给权利人造成较大经济损失,应加大赔偿力度,判令侵权人承担较重的赔偿责任。     

欧共体竞争法中的知识产权

一 绪论同一般财产权一样，知识产权最重要的特点是专有性。即未经权利人同意，任何人都不得使用专利或者有着保密措施的技术秘密。正是因为这种专有性或者排他性，知识产权的权利人才可能通过其创造性的智力成果，在一个有限的时间和地域内就某种产品的生产或者销售取得垄断地位，进而获取垄断利润。这种状况说明，知识产权包括专利权、商标权以及版权的法律保护与竞争法之间存在着矛盾。即一方面，知识产权所有人因为在发明创造工作中付出了劳动，他们有权通过其发明创造或者知识在竞争中取得优势地位，甚至垄断地位，而且也应当有权通过…     

谈专利权共有

专利权共有指两个以上的公民或法人对专利权共享所有权。它应按法律规定或当事人协议形成。一般来说,可能产生的专利权共有情况有以下几种: 1.共同完成发明创造。根据《专利法》第8条的规定,“两个单位协作或者一个单位接受其他单位委托的研究、设计任务,所完成的发明创造双方没有协议的,申请专利的权利属于完成或共同完成的单位,申请被批准后,专利权归申请单位所有或持有”。这条规定意味着因合作完成的发明创造所产生的权利,除非有相反的协定,应由完成单位共有。那么对于个人之间、个人与单位之间合作完成的发明是否也可以形成专利权共有呢?专利法没有有关条文,但是后来颁布的《技术合同法》填补了这个空白,《技术合同法》第32条规定,合作开发所完成的发明创造,除合同另外约定外,     

专利权归属纠纷案件及其管辖

专利权归属纠纷是指一项发明创造正式授予专利权后,该发明创造的实际权利人(单位或者个人)与该专利权人之间就谁是真正的专利权人而发生的争议。主要包括专利法第6条、第8条和技术合同法第32条、专利法实施细则第54条第三款、第55条第三款涉及的以下几种情况:①职务发明创造,被个人作为非职务发明申请专利并获得专利权;②非职务发明创造,被单位作为职务发明申请专利并获得了专利权;③个人完成或几方共同完成的发明创造,却由完成发明创造以     

论专利权善意取得之不可适用

在专利权属纠纷中,当真正权利人享有专利申请权的技术成果被他人提交专利申请之后再行转让时,如何处理真正权利人和善意受让人之间的法律关系?通过对善意取得制度设立之本源以及专利权客体的基本法律特征的分析,应当明确:专利技术成果的转让不可适用善意取得制度,在无权主体转让专利申请权或专利权之后,真正权利人仍应有权请求变更权利归属。与此同时,为了确保技术成果的交易安全,可以借鉴遗失物返还请求权除斥期间的规定以及专利先用权的相关规定,对善意受让人的权益给予一定的保障。     

专利权保护系列问答(一) 专利权的保护范围及侵权救济

问:我国现行法律是如何确定专利权保护范围的?专利侵权行为主要有哪些类型?专利权人一旦发现自己拥有专利权的发明创造被他人非法使用构成侵权时,可以采取哪些救济措施? 答:专利权的保护范围根据专利权的类型不同而有所不同。按照我国《专利法》第五十六条的规定,发明或者实用新型专利权的保护范围以其权利要求     

商业秘密与专利权的法律经济分析——两种知识产权保护模式的选择

一、商业秘密权与专利权的比较分析(一)商业秘密与专利权的界定依通说之见,所谓专利,是指公民、法人或其他组织对其发明创造在一定期限内依法享有的垄断权或者独占权。①就专利本身的特点而言,相别于其他的知识产权,同样的发明创造只能被授予一项专利,且其保护期限较短,为20年或10年,并且须经过国务院专利行政部门依照法定程序进行审批,发明创造才可能获得专利权。②对于商业秘密的界定,各国法律均有不同的观点。③一般说来,商业秘密是指不为公众所知悉,能为权利人带来经济利益,具有实用性并经权利人采取保密措施的技术信息和经营信息。一般…     

技术秘密侵权案件法律适用的探讨

我国目前尚无专门保护技术秘密的立法,已有的 规定既零星,又不系统。因此,在审理技术秘密侵权案 件中,办案人员难免遇到法律适用上的诸多困惑。本文 拟就此作一粗浅探讨。 一、侵权行为种类及制裁依据 侵害技术秘密的行为,可划分为如下三种情形: 1.普通侵权。即其他法人、组织和个人直接侵犯权利人的技术秘密权利。主要表现为:采取窃取、胁迫等不正当手段获取技术秘密,或者擅自披露、转让以及允许他人使用技术秘密等。对于这一类普通侵权行为,民     

浅析域名注册人与网站权利人权利的界定

目前,随着由域名引发的知识产权纠纷的日益增多,笔者发现在司法实践中,对于域名注册人的权利与因域名使用中派生的网站权利人的权利很容易出现混淆。特别是域名注册人与域名使用人或网站权利人系非同一主体的情况下,其各自应享有何种权利以及这些权利遭受他人侵害时,该由谁主张权利很少有人深     

The contractual alternative to patents

A patent grants the holder a monopoly over the use of the patented invention for a specified time period. Although economists are generally opposed to monopoly, there seems to be a general consensus that the patent system is desirable.¹ The rationale for the patent system is that without ownership rights in inventions, there would not be optimal allocation of resources to inventive activities, just as with any other valuable resource over which there are not well-defined property rights. However, the patent system, since it confers monopoly rights, has its drawbacks as well. If independent parties are working simultaneously toward an invention, the first to produce the invention will receive a monopoly over its use, even though others may have been only a month behind. This may encourage inventors to work too intensively toward a patent, and could also have the effect of producing monopoly in a market that was characterized by competition before the patent was issued. In addition, competitors have an incentive to develop substitute processes to avoid infringement of the patent, when the use of the patented process would be more economical. A substitute for patents which provides ownership rights in an invention without governmental grant of a monopoly is the trade secret. The purpose of this paper is to introduce and develop the idea of the law of trade secrets as a contractual alternative to patents.     

Causes and Prevention of Intellectual Property Crime

Intellectual property refers to the ownership and rights to use creative work that result from intellectual activity. Although there are four recognized categories of intellectual property (patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyright), copyright violations have garnered much attention of late because of the copying of software, movies, videogames, and music that deny publishers and authors' economic returns on their property. In order to understand this growing form of theft and the costs and consequences of such actions, the current research has three foci. First, the types of activities that fall under the rubric of intellectual property are identified and defined. Second, the causes or theoretical arguments developed to understand intellectual property theft are identified and discussed. Third, prevention techniques are examined in order to understand what is currently being done to control and prevent the misuse and theft of intellectual property. A research agenda outlining data collection efforts is also presented.     

技术创新中的企业知识产权战略论

企业是技术创新的主体,以企业为创新主体的产学研合作及其知识产权战略实施是企业实现技术创新目标的关键和保障。以技术创新过程中一体化模式下的知识产权特征分析为基础,在知识产权权利内容和知识产权运作标准下,从微观层面详细论述企业的专利战略、商标战略、商业秘密战略、知识产权管理战略以及知识产权流失预防与控制战略。     

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

Several recent studies show European university scientists contributing far more frequently to company-owned patented inventions than they do to patents owned by universities or by the academic scientists themselves. Recognising the significance of this channel for direct commercialisation of European academic research makes it important to understand its response to current Bayh-Dole inspired reforms of university patenting rights. This paper studies the contribution from university scientists to inventions patented by dedicated biotech firms (DBFs) specialised in drug discovery in Denmark and Sweden, which in this respect share a number of structural and historic characteristics. It examines effects of the Danish Law on University Patenting (LUP) effective January 2000, which transferred to the employer university rights to patents on inventions made by Danish university scientists alone or as participants in collaborative research with industry. Sweden so far has left property rights with academic scientists, as they also were in Denmark prior to the reform. Consequently, comparison of Danish and Swedish research collaboration before and after LUP offers a quasi-controlled experiment, bringing out effects on joint research of university IPR reform. In original data on all 3,640 inventor contributions behind the 1,087 patents filed by Danish and Swedish DBFs 1990–2004, Difference-in-Difference regressions uncover notable LUP-induced effects in the form of significant reductions in contributions from Danish domestic academic inventors, combined with a simultaneous substitutive increase of non-Danish academic inventors. A moderate increase in academic inventions channelled into university owned-patents does appear after LUP. But the larger part of the inventive potential of academia, previously mobilised into company-owned patents, seems to have been rendered inactive as a result of the reform. As a likely explanation of these effects the paper suggests that exploratory research, the typical target of joint university-DBF projects in drug discovery, fits poorly into LUP’s requirement for ex ante allocation of IPR. The Pre-LUP convention of IPR allocated to the industrial partner in return for research funding and publication rights to the academic partner may have offered more effective contracting for this type of research. There are indications that LUP, outside the exploratory agenda of drug discovery, offers a more productive framework for inventions requiring less complicated and uncertain post-discovery R&D.

论利用ATM机故障恶意取款行为的定性——兼论侵占罪、盗窃罪、信用卡诈骗罪实行行为的区别

利用ATM机故障恶意取款行为是指信用卡的合法持卡人,或者经持卡人合法授权的人,在明知银行的ATM机出现技术故障的情况下,进行取款、转账等操作程序,非法占有银行资金的行为。这种行为具有五个特征,即信用卡的真实性、主体的合法性、银行的过错性、行为的形式正当性和主观的恶意性。对利用ATM机故障恶意取款的行为应当定盗窃罪,而不能以信用卡诈骗罪或侵占罪处罚。     

Patenting nanotechnology

Universities and companies are rushing to the patent office in record numbers to patent nanotechnology inventions. This rush to the patent office is so significant that many law firms have established nanotechnology practice groups and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has now created a new technology class designed to track nanotechnology products. Three big differences between the emerging science of nanotechnology and other inventions make the role of patents more significant in this arena than elsewhere. First, this is almost the first new field in a century in which the basic ideas are being patented at the outset. In many of the most important fields of invention over the past century--computer hardware, software, the Internet, even biotechnology--the basic building blocks of the field were either unpatented or the patents were made available to all users by government regulation. In others, patents were delayed by interferences for so long that the industry developed free from their influence. In nanotechnology, by contrast, companies and universities alike are patenting early and often. A second factor distinguishing nanotechnology is its unique cross-industry structure. Unlike other new industries, in which the patentees are largely actual or at least potential participants in the market, a significant number of nanotechnology patentees will own rights not just in the industry in which they participate, but in other industries as well. This overlap may significantly affect their incentives to license the patents. Finally, a large number of the basic nanotechnology patents have been issued to universities, which have become far more active in patenting in the last twenty-five years. While universities have no direct incentive to restrict competition, their interests may or may not align with the optimal implementation of building-block nanotechnology inventions. The result is a nascent market in which a patent thicket is in theory a serious risk. Whether it will prove a problem in practice depends in large part on how efficient the licensing market turns out to be.     

侵犯商业秘密罪的实行行为探析

在侵犯商业秘密罪的实行行为中,构成"不正当手段"要求该行为在主观上违背权利人的意愿,客观上具有不正当性;披露的公开化程度不影响该罪的成立;在间接侵犯商业秘密的情况下,其"获取"和"使用"行为与直接侵犯商业秘密情况下的"获取"和"使用"行为存在着差异。     

Why university inventions rarely produce income? Bottlenecks in university technology transfer

As intended, universities have gained ownership to an increased number of inventions from their labs after the enactment of Bayh-Dole act in 1980. But, how well are the universities taking advantage of the provisions of this Act? One aspect of this question is addressed empirically in this study. An analysis of the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) periodic Licensing Activity Surveys of 1995–2004 indicated that the annual income generated by licensing university inventions was 1.7% of total research expenditure in 1995 and 2.9% in 2004. Some consider this and the rate of commercialization of university inventions to be too low. A premise of this study is that the slow rate of commercialization of university inventions may be due to the lack of adequate trained staff and inventions processing capacity in University Offices of Technology Transfer (UOTT). This paper describes an empirical study of the non-legal, technical, and legal invention processing capacity of US UOTT and its implications. A survey questionnaire was sent to 99 randomly selected US research universities. Seventy-five percent of the respondents mentioned shortage of staff for non-legal and legal processing of inventions. More than a third of the respondents claimed that, in 2006, they failed to process more than 26% of the inventions due to insufficient processing capacity in the UOTT. The study includes multiple regression models to estimate the effect of staffing on performance variables (i.e., Provisional Applications Filed, Patent [non-provisional] Applications and Licenses Executed) and “Inventions Not Processed” by the UOTTs due to staff/budget shortages. It is argued that, when short of staff and budget, UOTTs will be reduced to devoting their resources to ensuring patent applications are filed and patents are issued at the expense of marketing of inventions. Further, high-tech inventions are difficult to market because, often, there are no ready markets for them, especially if the inventor had no pre-invention contacts with a potential licensee. High-tech inventions originating from university labs may need market space/niche identification, new market creation, and the translation of the lab result into an “investor friendly” business plan; most UOTTs may be significantly short on these skills. Recommendations of this study are: first, an in-depth study of universities that are prolific in licensing inventions (40 or more licenses a year) is necessary to understand the reasons for their success in the context of UOTTs capacity to process inventions. Further, all federal agencies sponsoring university research must earmark a small percentage of each grant exclusively for commercialization purposes at the university. The paper offers multiple options for the effective use of these funds. The paper also offers several avenues for future research.     

物权行为理论与不当得利

物权行为理论将出卖人的所有权请求权转化为不当得利请求权 ,无可争议地损害了出卖人利益 ,牺牲交易公正。同时 ,该理论不当扩大了不当得利的范围 ,不承认该理论 ,并不影响不当得利制度的构建。     

Patent-Secret Mix in Complex Product Firms

Different protection mechanisms may be employed at the sametime when an innovation is comprised of separately protectablecomponents. If patents and trade secrets can be mixed in protectingsingle innovations, a strengthening in patent breadth may inducea lower level of patenting, as innovators are more prone torely on secrecy.