眾所周知，歐洲與美國在實務上對於專利申請權的見解並不相同。這可能會對於雇主與雇員之間的職務上發明構成某些問題。

在歐洲，申請人是藉著「是誰提出申請這個動作」而簡單地推定。歐洲專利局並不會直接處理誰具有相關權利或是所有權之問題，但是大多數的國家之法律都會針對這些情況來制定相關規定。在雇員與雇主的典型情況下，只要該發明之隸屬國家的國內法允許，雇主就可以用自己的名義作為起始的申請人。發明人雖然必須被同時列名與確認，但這僅只是基於發明人彰名權的理由而已。

但是在美國，發明人應該被列名為起始申請人，也就是一或多個雇員發明人(inventor employee)。在典型的美國僱傭關係中，係藉著讓渡程序來確認歸屬。在美國專利法中之「雇員發明實施權」學說 (Shop-right doctrine)，實務上通常係為一種用來誘使員工將其之權利讓渡給雇主的方式。

這個問題對於衍生自美國優先權申請案（不論其係為臨時案/非臨時案）之後續歐洲申請案來說，可能會是非常嚴重的。為了可以在歐洲有效地主張來自美國申請案的優先權，所有出現在原始美國申請案中之申請人或是其之權利的繼受人，都必須存在於後續的歐洲申請案中。這一點係被明確地制定於EPC申請流程內（舉例來說可以參見Art 87 EPC 以及 J19/87的判決中）。請注意，如果未符合此項條件，優先權便會被視為無效，因此任何在這段時間中所出現之會造成影響的先前技術，都會使得該專利申請案無效。而這通常意味著整份專利權的喪失！

因此，在進入歐洲國家階段之前，就取得來自所歸屬之美國申請案的優先權，便會變得很重要。要做到這一點，最好的辦法就是讓雇員發明人（因此也就是美國優先權申請案中之申請人），將其等之優先權的權利（同時可能也包含所有的其他權利）讓渡給雇主。然後，雇主就可以用自己的名義來申請一件歐洲申請案。然而，這必須是基於雇員發明人的名義來進行，並且要在相關之歐洲專利申請的申請日之前完成—否則其仍然會被視為是無效的。這將會是最好的解決方式，因為即使美國優先權案是基於美國法律，而要求以其等之發明人的名義來提出申請，但是在歐洲這種情況卻不允許雇主完全掌控其之發明。

只不過有時候並非總是可以在截止期限內（也就是優先權年限截止/歐洲案提出申請之前），取得此等讓渡記錄。所以另一種作法則是，在申請歐洲申請案並主張來自美國申請案之優先權時，將雇主增列為共同申請人。然後即使是在優先權日之後，也可以藉著讓渡程序來將雇員發明人移除，同時讓該申請案得以回歸到雇主的掌握之中。這雖然不是較為理想的狀況，特別是其將會導致我們先前已經提到之在管理上較為複雜的共同申請人情況，但是總好過於可能會基於出現先前技術以及喪失優先權的狀況，而獲致徹底失去專利申請案而無法挽回的情況！

作者： 郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師 現任： 北美智權教育訓練處 ／歐洲專利律師 經歷： Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師 Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 歐洲專利局 實習生 英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系，生化碩士 英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院，智財管理碩士

Warning about priorities and fulfilling the correct formalities in time
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney

As is well known, European and US practice view patent application ownership differently. This can create an issue for employer-employee inventions.

In Europe, the applicant is assumed to be entitled by simply applying the application. The EPO does not deal with entitlement or ownership issues directly, but most national laws do dictate for such situations. In the classic case of the employee-employer, the employer can nominate himself as the starting applicant, as long as it is allowed by the national law of the country in which the invention was created. The inventors have to be also nominated and recognized as such, but only for the moral right of being recognized as the inventor.

In the USA, the inventor has to be nominated as first applicant, which means that it is the one or more inventor employee. Classically, in the US, the employer-employee relationship is sorted by having an assignment. “Shop-right” doctrine within US patent law is one way in which the employee in practice is often incentivized to assign his rights over to the employer.

The issue can be very serious for successive European applications that derive from a US priority application (be it provisional/non-provisional).  To validly claim a priority in Europe from the US application, all of the applicants present in the original US application, or their successor in title, have to be present in the successive European application. This is firmly established within the EPC procedures (for example Art 87 EPC and decision J19/87). Please note that if this is not the case, the priority is not valid and therefore any intervening prior art would invalidate the patent application. This generally would mean loss of entire patent right!

Hence it is important to have the right to priority deriving from a US application sorted before entering the European national phase. The best way to do this is to have the inventor employees (and therefore applicants in the priority US application) assign their rights to priority (and probably all other) over to the employer. Then the employer can have a EP application filed in his own name. However this must be done on behalf of all inventor employees and done before the filing date of the relevant EP application - otherwise it’s invalid. This is the best solution because it does not allow employers complete control over their invention in Europe even though the US priority, due to US Law, requires them to file in name of the inventor.

However getting such assignment recorded within such a deadline (end of priority year/before EP filing) is not always possible. The alternative is to then file a EP application, claiming priority from the US application and adding the employer as co-applicant. The removal of employee inventors can then be solved by the assignment, even after the priority date, while allowing some control of the application in the hands of the employer. It is not ideal, especially as it leads to a situation of co-applicants in patent rights which can be complicated to manage as we have described before, but it is better than losing the application outright due to intervening prior art and loss of right to priority!

Author: Stefano John, European Patent Attorney Experiences： European Patent Attorney, Bryers Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi Internship, EPO

Facebook 按讚馬上加入北美智權報粉絲團