All
 
|
 
 


Legal risks of investing in innovative patentable results of scientific and technical activity
 
PIIS013207690007820-4-1
DOI10.31857/S013207690007820-4
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Ekaterina A. Sviridova 
Affiliation: Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameGosudarstvo i pravo
EditionIssue 12
Pages76-84
Abstract

The article examines the risks of investing in innovative patentable developments. Analyzing the risk of challenging the employee, who is the author of the invention, the official nature of the latter (which can lead to the invalidity of the granted patent), it is concluded that the criteria for the official nature of the invention are extremely vague. The wording of the employee's labor obligations may take the form of a generalized list of labor functions performed by the employee, which makes it difficult to determine the ownership of the exclusive right to the created result of intellectual activity. The criterion of the place of performance of works developed by judicial practice loses its importance in relation to small businesses, and as an exception it should not be taken into account when determining the service nature of inventions created by employees of small businesses.

The article also examines the ownership of the right to an invention in French and German legislation.

The practice of so-called parallel licensing is singled out as a risk of investing in innovative developments. In the absence of special legal regulation, participants in civil turnover are encouraged to use the institution of assurance about the circumstances to solve this problem.

The explanation for the low patent activity is, among other things, the problem of determining the size and order of payment of remuneration for the created service result of intellectual activity. The study of French law in this area also shows the imperfection of the methodology for determining the royalties to inventors. The analysis of the German legislation allows to draw a conclusion that the method of determination of the size of remuneration of the worker for office work fixed in it, is more preferable for the inventor. The German approach to determining employee compensation for a service invention can be seen as objective, while the French approach is subjective. In the absence of special legal regulation in the legislation of the Russian Federation of the employer's liability for non-payment of royalties, it is proposed to apply the rules on unjust enrichment.

Keywordsresults of intellectual activity, invention, exclusive right, parallel licensing, license agreement, exclusive license, service invention, investment, royalties
Received06.12.2019
Publication date23.12.2019
Number of characters33278
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1135

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Gavrilov E.P. The right of the author of the service invention to remuneration // Patents and licenses. Intellectual rights. 2019. No. 2. P. 48–55 (in Russ).
2. Ivanov N.V. Parallel licenses for the use of intellectual property objects // Journal of the Court of intellectual rights. 2019. No. 23. P. 5–13 (in Russ).
3. Stepanenko R.F. Legal risks as a subject of research of the General theory of law: problems and prospects of methodology of interdisciplinarity // State and law. 2018. No. 6. P. 13 - 22 (in Russ).
4. Code de la Propriete Intellectuelle (version consolidee au 1 aout 2019) [Derniere modification du texte le 26/07/2019] [Electronic resource] - Access mode. URL: http://codes.droit.org/CodV3/propriete_intellectuelle.pdf  (accessed: 21.10.2019).
5. Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre sociale, 2 juin 2010, 08-70.138 [Electronic resource] - Access mode. URL: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudi&idTexte=JURITEXT000022313187&fastReqId=63017721&fastPos=1  (accessed: 10.10.2019).
6. Conseil d'Etat, 4eme et 5eme sous-sections reunies, 22/02/2010, 320319 [Electronic resource] - Access mode. URL: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriAdmin.do?oldAction=rechJuriAdmin&idTexte=CETATEXT000021880330&fastReqId=720391784&fastPos=1  (accessed: 10.10.2019).
7. Doyen D., Fortune Å. La Remuneration des Inventions de Salaries Pratiques en vigueur en France. Les analyses de l’Observatoire de la propriete intellectuelle. Octobre 2016 [Electronic resource] - Access mode. URL: file:///C:/Users/surface/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/etude_ris_inpi_10_2016v2_002%20(1).pdf (accessed: 19.10.2019).
8. TGI Paris, ch. civ. 3, 28 mars 2008, n° 06/06799 [Electronic resource] - Access mode. URL: https://www.doctrine.fr/d/TGI/Paris/2008/FR071C57D508615235B0F4  (accessed: 20.10.2019).
9. TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE DE PARIS 3eme chambre 4eme section N°RG: 12/07469 JUGEMENT rendu le 30 Janvier 2014 [Electronic resource] - Access mode. URL: https://www.sedlex.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/tribunal-de-grande-instance-de-paris-3e-ch.-4e-sect.-30-janvier-2014-vincent-g.-c.-ader-languedoc-roussillon-et-al.pdf  (accessed: 12.10.2019).

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up