專利權的共同所有於台美間的差異

台美專利權的共同所有的差異

臺灣專利法與美國專利法的不同，臺灣專利法規定「非得共有人全體之同意，不得讓與或授權他人實施」，但美國判例則判決（沒找到法條但找到判例）「可以將其權利轉換給他人」。

兩者各自立法想保護的對象重點不同，這樣的差異可以依契約來規定來解決各立法的缺點，在臺灣專利法下可以於契約中規定“不實施補償”來保護“弱勢的發明人”。

===

臺灣專利法
○第 61 條 發明專利權為共有時，除共有人自己實施外，非得共有人全體之同意，不得讓與或授權他人實施。但契約另有約定者，從其約定。
○第 62 條 發明專利權共有人未得共有人全體同意，不得以其應有部分讓與、信託他人或設定質權。

美國專利法
35 U.S.C. 262 Joint owners.
In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, each of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the United States, or import the patented invention into the United States, without the consent of and without accounting to the other owners.

To determine ownership of the ‘446, ‘438, and ‘114 Patents, the Court first must determine the inventorship of the inventions in the patents. Beech Aircraft Corp. v. EDO Corp., 990 F.2d 1237, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Normally, ownership of the patents will be determined by the identity of the inventors. Id. (“At the heart of any ownership analysis lies the question of who first invented the subject matter at issue, because the patent right initially vests in the inventor who may then, barring any restrictions to the contrary, transfer that right to another, and so forth.”); Teets v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 83 F.3d 403, 407 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Ownership springs from invention.”)（資料來源）

參考資料：（一）不實施補償