2006년 개정 직무발명제도의 제 문제점 및 재개정방안 = Pitfalls of the Amended Employee Invention Act of 2006 and Reamendment Proposals

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Based on the presumption that the employee (inventor) contributes about 30% to create the employee invention and the employer contributes about 70%, the co-ownership system upon which the employee and the employer are considered to jointly own the right to get a patent is more logical than the inventorship system upon which the employee is considered to own all of the right to get a patent. Based on the co-ownership system, the employee invention is originally belonged to both the employee and the employer after completion of the employee invention and thereafter following an applicable succession provision, the employee's portion of right is succeeded to the employer. This way of co-ownership system (1) may logically admit the contributions of the employee and the employer and (2) may prevent malicious application or succession by the employee.
The amended Employee Invention Act of 2006 prescribes that (1) in a company which does not have an employee invention succession provision, the employee has all of the right to get a patent and the employer has just free non-exclusive right to exploit the invention and further that (2) without the employer's notice of succession within four months after the employee's report, the employee invention is considered to be a free invention. Those provisions are unconstitutional or at least unreasonable by depriving property right of the employer who has contributed about 70% to create the invention.
The amended Employee Invention Act of 2006 mandates the employer to notify the employee of succession intent within four months after the employee's report of the invention. However considering that it is empirically very rare for the employer not to succeed the invention, it should be allowed for the employer to has a provision based on which the invention is automatically succeeded to the employer without a separate non-succession notice. This "automatic succession" may reduce workload of the employer and may prevent possibility of a mistake.
In addition, the amended Employee Invention Act blocks the possibility of another succession time by prescribing that the succession time is when the employer notify the employee of succession intent. However, based on the "immediate succession" system, the employee invention may be succeeded to the employer when the employee notifies the employer of the invention. Such "immediate succession" system must be allowed to minimize the possibility for a malicious employee to file a patent application himself or to succeed the invention to the third party.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 발명자주의 v. 사용자주의
• Ⅲ. 직무발명에의 종업원(발명자)의 기여도
• Ⅳ. 2006년 개정 직무발명제도의 문제점
• Ⅴ. 2006년 개정 직무발명제도의 재개정방안
• Ⅵ. 결론
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "한국의 직무발명보상제도와 정책과제" 19 (19): 2006.06

2 "특허법원 2006.12.28. 선고 2005허9282 판결" 2006

3 "특허법상의 직무발명제도 및 그 문제점" 6 : 1999

4 "특허법 9판" 2003

5 "특허법 9판" 2004

6 "특허기술 거래와 거래가격 결정" 2006

7 "직무발명제도의 개요" 특허청 직무발명연구회 2006.03.30

8 "직무발명제도 이렇게 바뀌었습니다" 2006.06

9 "직무발명의 승계" 2007

10 "직무발명의 귀속과 보상-한국과 미국을 중심으로" 서울대학교 법학 2005

11 "직무발명에 대한 고찰" 연세대 특허법무대학원 1996

12 "직무발명에 대한 고찰" (551) : 2002

13 "직무발명보상제도 운영실태 조사결과" 2007.01

14 "직무발명과 종업원의 권리에 관한 고찰" 2005.02

15 "지식재산 주요통계" 2006.02

16 "일본의 직무발명보상제도와 특징-2004년 개정특허법을 중심으로" 19 : 2006

17 "일본의 직무발명 보상 현황과 최근 동향" 2004.06

18 "이지특허법(3판)" 2004

19 "선고 91후1113 판결" 대법원 1991

20 "기업의 직무발명과 그 보상에 관한 연구" (13) : 2002

21 "국 공립대학교수의 직무발명과 활성화에 관한 법리 및 제도적 고찰" 18 : 2005

22 "개정 발명진흥법 제11조 제3항의 문제점" 2006

23 "각국 직무발명제도의 비교법학 연구를 통한 직무발명제도 개선방안" 2004

24 "‘06년 주요정책과제 자체평가결과" 2006

25 "Principles of Patent Law" 2004

26 "Muencer v. W.E. & John Barners Co., 9 Ill. App. 2d 391" -391, 1956

27 "Kopin v. Orange Products, Inc., 297 N.J.Super. 353" Superior Court of New Jersey 1997

28 "Fonar Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1552-53" 1997

29 "2007년 1월중 신설법인 동향" 2007.02