|
Junior Member
|
引用:
|
作者Hermit Crab
申請人不是雇主也不是發明人，那就是那個“投資人”是吧?
基於這個前提那還是得回歸原本的三方或雙方協議内容.
如果是三方協議約定不清楚，基於職務發明原則，法院一般不會偏袒發明人，
至於是判給投資人還是學校，這就得看各方舉證，看哪一方才是實際委托人。
如果是雙方協議，也就是可能存在惡意欺詐問題，那被懞的那方可能是贏家。
阻止申請或發表是有罪的？
我不知道這是誰教的，但是權利存在爭議時，利益關係方有權透過訴訟干預。
如果有人拿著職務發明直接跳過雇主或投資者去發表論文，那就等著被告死。
至於剛冒出來的第6點，起碼比你確定.
ITC官司很多就是邊打邊修，打著打著發現規避設計很容易，原專利就玩完了.
|
http://ipadvocatefoundation.org/for...m?Type=Disputes
引用:
|
U.S. v. Dubilier (1933) - Although this precedent-setting case is over 75 years old, it is still relevant today. Dubilier established that employers only have rights in an employee invention 'if' the employee was specifically 'hired to invent' as opposed to hired to perform research.
|
引用:
|
U. of Western Australia v. Gray (2008) - The university claimed that by reason of his employment with them, it was entitled to rights in Dr. Gray's cancer related research, inventions and related patents. The court ruled that faculty UWA's regulations could not validly appropriate employee's property rights, and that an express 'duty to perform research' was not synonymous with a 'duty to invent.'
|
這兩個案例的說法，被雇來做研究的，不等於被雇來做發明。
必須職務裏有明確說要發明才算。 |