本文選題：職務發(fā)明 + 專利申請權　； 參考：《知識產(chǎn)權》2016年09期

【摘要】：從司法實踐來看,我國大部分地方法院持比較寬松的態(tài)度解釋"物質(zhì)技術條件標準",由此可能不適當?shù)財U大了職務發(fā)明的范圍。考察其他國家專利制度中有關職務發(fā)明的法律規(guī)則,在判定職務發(fā)明時基本上都采納了與我國類似的"任務標準";而對于發(fā)明人在研發(fā)過程中利用雇主提供的物質(zhì)技術條件所完成的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造,其是否屬于職務發(fā)明,各國立法并不統(tǒng)一。在職務發(fā)明的權利歸屬方面,存在著"雇主優(yōu)先"與"發(fā)明人優(yōu)先"兩大模式。對于"主要利用本單位的物質(zhì)技術條件所完成的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造",不應強制將其納入職務發(fā)明的范圍;對于"利用本單位的物質(zhì)技術條件所完成的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造",在優(yōu)先歸屬發(fā)明人的前提下可由雙方約定其權利歸屬。
[Abstract]:Judging from judicial practice, most local courts in our country take a more relaxed attitude to interpret "material and technical conditions standard", which may inappropriately expand the scope of job invention. To examine the legal rules governing job inventions in the patent systems of other countries, In determining a job invention, the "task standard" similar to that of our country has been basically adopted; and whether the invention completed by the inventor in the course of research and development using the material and technical conditions provided by the employer is a job invention, National legislation is not uniform. There are two modes of "employer first" and "inventor priority" in the ownership of duty invention. For the "invention and creation which is accomplished mainly by using the material and technical conditions of the unit", it should not be forced to be included in the scope of the job invention; In the case of "invention and creation completed by the use of the material and technical conditions of the unit", the rights of the inventor may be assigned by both parties on the premise of giving priority to the inventor.
【作者單位】： 南開大學法學院;
【基金】：作者主持的2013年天津市哲學社會科學規(guī)劃項目(編號:TJFX13-003)階段性成果 南開大學亞洲研究中心資助
【分類號】：D923.42

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前3條

1 陳曉華;駱福林;;論高校技術成果的權屬界定[J];商場現(xiàn)代化;2006年11期

2 凌宗亮;;執(zhí)行本單位任務所完成職務發(fā)明的權利歸屬不適用約定[J];人民司法;2014年08期

3 ;[J];;年期

相關重要報紙文章 前1條

1 惷中林;技術成果及其權屬的界定[N];人民法院報;2005年

，

本文編號：1884994