Labor law: rights in an invention: since 1790, patent
law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the
inventor. See, e.g., Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477, 493. In most
cases, a patent may be issued only to an applying inventor, or—because an
inventor’s interest in his invention is assignable in law by an instrument in
writing—an inventor’s assignee. See United States v. Dubilier
Condenser Corp., 289 U. S. 178, 187. Absent an agreement to the contrary,
an employer does not have rights in an invention “which is the original
conception of the employee alone,” id., at 189; an inventor must
expressly grant those rights to his employer, see id., at 187; the
Court’s construction of the Act is also reflected in the common practice of
contractors, who generally obtain assignments from their employees, and of
agencies that fund federal contractors, who typically expect those contractors
to obtain assignments. With effective assignments, federally funded inventions
become “subject inventions” and the Act as a practical matter works pretty much
the way Stanford says it should. The only significant difference is that it
does so without violence to the basic patent law principle that inventors own
their inventions (U.S.S.Ct., 06.06.11, Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford
Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., C.J. Roberts).
Monday, June 6, 2011
Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment