Professional and Academic Employee Inventions: Looking Beyond the UK Paradigm

J. Pila
{"title":"Professional and Academic Employee Inventions: Looking Beyond the UK Paradigm","authors":"J. Pila","doi":"10.4337/9781781001622.00013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The vast majority of inventions are devised by employees, raising the question who is entitled to patent them? Under the UK Patents Act 1977, the right to patent an invention lies primarily with its inventor(s). However, an exception exists for employee inventions to which section 39(1) applies. The recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in UWA v Gray raises the question of the applicability of this provision in the university context, in respect of regular academic employees. In that case, the Court relied on UK authorities to support its conclusion that the University of Western Australia had no rights in respect of certain inventions devised by its former Professor of Surgery. In so doing it raised a question regarding the widespread assumption that section 39(1) applies indiscriminately, including in respect of academic inventions. In a forthcoming article (\"'Sewing the Fly Buttons on the Statute:\" Employee Inventions and the Employment Context' (2012) 32 OJLS) I question that assumption, arguing that section 39(1) is built around a private sector paradigm, and that there exists a 'rational reason' in the sense of Shanks v Unilever plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1283 for departing from that paradigm in certain cases, including those involving academic and professional employees. In the current paper I build on this argument by considering its support in modern law.","PeriodicalId":402063,"journal":{"name":"Education Law eJournal","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781001622.00013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The vast majority of inventions are devised by employees, raising the question who is entitled to patent them? Under the UK Patents Act 1977, the right to patent an invention lies primarily with its inventor(s). However, an exception exists for employee inventions to which section 39(1) applies. The recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in UWA v Gray raises the question of the applicability of this provision in the university context, in respect of regular academic employees. In that case, the Court relied on UK authorities to support its conclusion that the University of Western Australia had no rights in respect of certain inventions devised by its former Professor of Surgery. In so doing it raised a question regarding the widespread assumption that section 39(1) applies indiscriminately, including in respect of academic inventions. In a forthcoming article ("'Sewing the Fly Buttons on the Statute:" Employee Inventions and the Employment Context' (2012) 32 OJLS) I question that assumption, arguing that section 39(1) is built around a private sector paradigm, and that there exists a 'rational reason' in the sense of Shanks v Unilever plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1283 for departing from that paradigm in certain cases, including those involving academic and professional employees. In the current paper I build on this argument by considering its support in modern law.
专业和学术员工发明:超越英国范例
绝大多数的发明都是由雇员设计的,这就提出了一个问题:谁有权为这些发明申请专利?根据1977年《英国专利法》,发明专利的权利主要属于其发明者。但是,适用第39(1)条的雇员发明存在例外。澳大利亚联邦法院全体法院最近在西澳大学诉格雷案中作出的决定提出了这一规定在大学背景下对正规学术雇员的适用性问题。在该案中,法院依靠英国当局来支持其结论,即西澳大利亚大学对其前外科教授设计的某些发明没有权利。在这样做时,它提出了一个关于第39(1)条不加区别地适用的普遍假设的问题,包括学术发明。在即将发表的一篇文章(“在法规上缝纽扣:“雇员发明和就业环境”(2012)32 OJLS)中,我对这一假设提出了质疑,认为第39(1)条是围绕私营部门范例建立的,并且在Shanks诉Unilever plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1283的意义上存在“理性理由”,因为在某些情况下,包括涉及学术和专业员工的情况下,偏离了该范例。在本文中,我通过考虑其在现代法律中的支持来建立这一论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信