智權報總覽 > PA 專欄           
 
專利共同所有權人可能產生的糾紛
郭史蒂夫/北美智權 教育訓練處 歐洲專利律師
中文翻譯:黃少瑜/北美智權教育訓練處設計專利工程師暨研究員

以往共有專利權(共同專利權人)以及專利申請權(共同申請人)的情況並不常見,但是目前由於合作研究的關係,而使得共享專利權的情形已經變得越來越常見。由於專利權是一種排除他人之壟斷排他的法律權利,其能夠允許專利所有權人防止其他人實施該項發明專利權所保護之範圍,同時專利權在某些情況下也可被視為是一種資產,因而這種壟斷他權的概念可以由一個以上的法人共享,所以也可能會因而製造出許多法律問題。

大多數法律問題都是在專利核准之後才產生的,不過有些問題也僅僅只會發生於共同申請人之間。舉例來說,在由其他國家透過巴黎公約來主張優先權並進行申請的情況中,在某一些司法管轄區域中,主張優先權的申請案在先申請案中之所有共同專利申請人,都必須以共同申請人的身分出現於後申請案中。這一點在某些情況下當然會造成困擾,例如在優先權申請案係為美國案的情況下,於美國的實務中是以被指名為發明人之公司內部員工作為申請人。因此,若沒有將權利適當地讓渡給公司,那麼該公司就無法用自己的公司名稱,來申請對應之歐洲申請案並享有優先權,因為在優先權案中之專利申請人仍然是公司員工的名字,而不是該公司的公司名稱。

這就是在Edwards Lifesciences AG v Cook Biotech Inc.這件英國案例中所發生的故事,該公司係以自己的公司名稱在英國申請了一件後續的專利申請案,然而在美國的對應專利案之申請人中,卻仍包含了發明人員工的名字。不幸的是,當公司將該專利權從該等員工轉讓給公司時,已經晚於可主張優先權之一年期間以後,所以其便無法被視為是可以轉讓優先權主張權利之程序。該件英國專利因此就無法享用到優先權,只因為並不是所有之原來的共同專利申請人,都存在於英國的專利申請案中。

與專利共同申請人有關的問題,同樣也有可能發生在例如美國之其他司法管轄區域中。Ethicon v USSC 是一件可以用來說明正確地轉讓共同申請人的重要性之著名案例。在這個案例中,系爭專利只有列名一位發明人 -- Dr. Yoon,其將獲准專利之技術獨家授權給Ethicon。在Ethicon對抗USSC的侵權訴訟中,USSC發現該系爭專利還有一位未被列名之發明人 -- Young Jae Choi。為了要對抗該專利權,USSC成功的把Young Jae Choi也列名為該系爭專利的發明人,然後從他身上取得一個可溯及既往的授權許可。這件事不僅造成Ethicon對抗 USSC的訴訟案敗訴,也弱化了Ethicon被獨家授權使用該專利之權利。

相對於共同申請人的問題,涉及共同專利權人之間的問題可能會是更加複雜的,因為其會牽涉到更多的因素。這些因素涵蓋了從相關國家法律是如何認定專利權的性質(是比較像財產權或是法定權益),到各界要如何讓專利獲准以及其等之相關意圖為何(應當基於正當行為原則)等等不同範疇。

共有專利權之其他類型的法律問題,可能發生在負擔維護專利權的有效性之義務,或是在能夠實施該發明所請求之保護範圍的能力之情況中。在法國、瑞士和芬蘭,其等之相關專利法指明這些情況都必須對於其他共有者,提供適當的補償(因此在實務上作法就是購買他們的同意權)。

在這個層面上歐盟在專利法中並沒有統一的做法,而是留給各國的法律來認定如何確認專利權。除了可以有共同專利申請人,以及其等所具有之權力義務應由國家層級來認定,並經由EPO透過認可協定(歐洲專利公約附加條款來認可之外,歐洲專利公約對於「共同專利申請人可以作什麼」一事,並未提供任何見解。

專利共同所有權人所牽涉之所有課題太過於複雜,而難以在這篇文章中提出總結,然而不管法律管轄區域為何,還是有兩項可以避免在共有專利申請權或是共有專利權時,所產生之大部分的法律問題之一般性準則。第一項準則是要在原始主張優先權之專利申請案中,正確的指明有權被列名為發明人/申請人之所有申請人。這些權利可以被轉移或轉讓,同時如果處理得當,應該就不會造成更進一步的問題;否則可能會導致專利無效的風險。第二項準則則是,在共同專利申請人或是共同專利權人之間,對於如何管理專利權的協議的效力,通常都會壓過與共同申請人或共同專利權人應該如作為有關之國家相關法律規定。然而筆者的相關法律經驗都顯示許多的合約都不夠詳盡,因而導致需要仰賴法院來解讀對於共有人之相關專利法的情況。因此,在開始進行任何合作程序時,要盡可能明確而詳盡地規定如何共同管理專利權,以避免之後昂貴的訴訟程序,這不管對誰來說都會是有好處的。

 

 
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

 


Possible complications on patent co-ownerships
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney

Co-ownership of granted patents (co-patentee) and patent applications (co-applicants) used to be rare, but is becoming more popular as the benefits of collaborative research leads to sharing patent rights.  As patents are monopoly legal rights that allow a patent owner from preventing all others from putting into effect what is claimed as the patented invention and as they are also rights which can be treated as property under some circumstances, the concept that this monopoly right can be shared by more than one legal person can create many legal issues.

Most of these legal issues arise once the patent has been granted, but some can simply arise even between co-applicants. For example, to enjoy priority rights from another patent application through the Paris Convention in some jurisdictions, all co-applicants in the priority application must be present as co-applicants in the subsequent patent application. This of course can create confusion in the situation where the priority application was a US patent application naming the employee-inventors as original applicants, as is US practice. Without a proper assignment or transfer of these rights to an employer, the employer would not be able to file a corresponding patent application in Europe under their own name and enjoy priority of the relevant US application because it would still be in the employee-inventor’s name and not the employer’s.

This is what happened in Edwards Lifesciences AG v Cook Biotech Inc in the UK, where the employer had filed a subsequent UK application in its name only while the US application also included the employee inventors. Unfortunately for the employer, the assignment from employees to employer was dated after the priority year and therefore not considered a valid assignment for the priority rights. Thus, the UK patent did not enjoy priority because not all co-applicants were present in the UK patent that were in the original patent application.

Problems regarding co-applicants can also occur in other jurisdictions, like the USA. A famous case that illustrates the importance of assigning co-applicant rights correctly is Ethicon v USSC. In that case a patent was obtained with only one listed inventor, Dr. Yoon, who granted Ethicon an exclusive license in the patented technology. During infringement proceeding by Ethicon against USSC, USSC discovered that there was a second, unlisted inventor : Young Jae Choi. To defeat the patent right, USSC successfully listed Mr. Choi as an inventor on the patent, and then obtained a retroactive license from him. Not only did this cause Ethicon’s case against USSC to fail, but it also diluted its licensed right to exclusive use of the patent.

Issues between co-patentees, as opposed to co-applicants can be even more complicated because many more factors are involved. These factors vary from how the relevant National Law treats the patent right (more like a property right or more like a legal right) to how the parties have behaved to obtain grant of the patents and their relevant intentions (under doctrine of equitable conduct).

Other type of legal issues for co-patentees can arise from the obligation to maintain the patent right in force or simply from the ability to put into effect the invention claimed. In France, Switzerland and Finland, the relevant patent Law indicates this is not possible without proper indemnification of the other co-owners (thus in practice one is buying their assent).

There is no harmonised European approach on this aspect of patent Law and it is left to national Laws to determine how to determine the patent rights. The European Patent Convention is silent on what can be done by co-applicants, except that they can exist and the relevant issues to entitlement should be decided at a national level and recognized by the EPO through a Protocol on Recognition (annex to the EPC).

All of these issues are too complicated to be summarised in this article, but there are two general rules that should help in avoiding most of the legal issues that can arise from being co-applicant or co-patentee, irrelevant of the jurisdiction.  The first rule is to correctly identify all the applicants who have a right to be named as inventors/applicants in the original priority setting patent application. Such rights can then be transferred or assigned, and if done properly, should not cause further problems. Otherwise one risks obtaining an invalid patent. The second rule is that agreements between co-applicants or co-patentees on how to manage the patent rights will generally trump the relevant Law of the country on how co-applicants or co-patentees should behave. However relevant legal experience shows that many of these contracts are not exhaustive and this lead to the default position of relying on the court’s interpretation of relevant patent Law on co-ownership. Therefore it pays for all parties to be as clear and exhaustive at the start of any collaborative process on how to manage the patent rights to avoid expensive litigation proceedings later.

 

 
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