3M公司職務發明報酬糾紛案評析

A Comment and Analysis of the Case of Service Invention Rewards Involving 3M Company

發明完成地與職務發明創造具有最密切聯系，職務發明報酬糾紛案件應當適用發明創造完成地法律。發明創造的完成地，並非要求發明的整體技術方案及其各個部分均須在某地完成，其中部分技術貢獻的完成地，也應當認定為發明完成地之一。“中央集權”式的知識產權管理模式，是基於跨國企業內部協議產生，因此不能否定發明人依據某一完成地法律規定而享有的合法權利。對於發明申請專利之前即轉移的，可認定為專利申請權的轉移，類推適用《專利法》關於被授予專利權單位應向職務發明人支付合理報酬的規定。用人單位關於職務發明報酬的規章制度，實質上是單位與員工之間的合同約定，只要經過協商一致，應當認定有效，但職務發明報酬具體數額是否合法有效取決於計算依據和計算過程是否客觀準確。

The place completing the invention has the closest relation with the service invention, so the dispute of service invention rewards shall apply the law of the place completing the invention. It is not necessary that the whole invention should be completed in one place, and the completing place of the part of the invention must be identiifed as the place completing the invention. The centralized IP management mode is generated by the internal convention of the multinational company and it cannot eliminate the legal rights of the inventor. The transfer of invention before patent application can be viewed as the transfer of the right of patent application and could apply the related articles of Patent Law requiring the work unit to pay the rewards of service invention by analogy. The rules and regulations about service invention rewards of the work unit are substantial the convention between work unit and employees and are legally effective after reaching a negotiated consensus. Whether the speciifc amount of the service rewards is legally effective depends on the accuracy and objectivity of the calculation basis and process.