歐洲高等法院（HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE）[2019] EWHC 1302 (IPEC)案件資訊：
原告：PROSYSCOR LIMITED
被告：(1) NETSWEEPER INC. (2) NETSWEEPER (BARBADOS) INC. (3) JEREMY ERB
系爭案：PCT Application No. WO 2013/177687
本案爭議是系爭PCT申請案以及進入國家階段的專利申請案的「所有權/ownership」，從系爭案申請人與原告的關係即可看出爭議點，系爭案申請人為本次原告公司PROSYSCOR創辦人Mr.Kite的前雇主Netsweeper，之後還擔任Netsweeper顧問一段時間。（Mr. Kite的解雇日是1 September 2010）
原告PROSYSCOR是英國網路管理公司，創辦人是Mr. Kite，開發可以讓使用者設定拒絕訪問網站IP網址的軟體，例如防止兒童訪問色情網站。系爭案申請人Netsweeper是本案被告，系爭案涉及一種網頁存取策略授權與認證技術，其中，當開啟一個網頁時，會被導入到授權頁，根據相關認證資料判斷是否可以訪問網頁。
涉及「職務上發明」議題的案件，故事很重要。
原告Mr. Kite主張受雇Netsweeper時開發了系爭案發明，並在擔任Netsweeper顧問時向系爭案發明人Mr. Erb提供保密的發明資料，後來Netsweeper違反保密協定（Confidentiality Agreement of 7 June 2011）提出專利申請，現在主張自己應該擁有該發明的權利。
inventorship部分，Netsweeper同意Mr. Kite可列為共同發明人，Mr. Erb也是發明人之一，因為他聲稱改善了Mr. Kite的發明。但就ownership部分，Netsweeper主張因為Mr. Kite在受雇期間開發該發明，Netsweeper應為系爭案擁有人。
法院如何釐清系爭案的擁有人，先看誰是發明人inventorship？對此提出爭點如下（這些問題很重要），其中涉及發明人是誰？誰應該擁有專利權/申請權？以及Netsweeper是否違反保密協定？：
inventorship
(1)發明中的進步特徵（inventive concept）是什麼？
(2)這個進步特徵是Mr. Kite還是Mr. Erb開發的？
entitlement
(3)是否開發出所述進步特徵是在原告Mr. Kite的工作範圍內？（Mr. Kite的解雇日是1 September 2010）
(4)如果開發出上述進步特徵是在Mr. Kite解雇日後，是否其專利權受到6 January 2009雙方簽署的附屬協議（ancillary agreement）所管轄？
breach of confidence
(5)針對原告提出Netsweeper違法保密協定（Confidentiality Agreement of 7 June 2011）的部分，Netsweeper揭露的保密資訊為何？
(6)除了公司內部揭露的信息外，還揭露了什麼？
(7)Netsweeper有沒有使用揭露的保密信息？
可知，歐洲法院在判斷專利擁有人時，第一，先判斷出發明能夠區隔先前技術的進步特徵，藉此決定誰是發明人，就本案而言，就是要查驗出原告對發明的貢獻。
關於受雇人的發明權利，規定在歐洲Patent Acts 1977的第39條：
39 Right to employees' inventions.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in any rule of law, an invention made by an employee shall, as between him and his employer, be taken to belong to his employer for the purposes of this Act and all other purposes if – (職務上發明應屬雇用人，如果：)
(a) it was made in the course of the normal duties of the employee or in the course of duties falling outside his normal duties, but specifically assigned to him, and the circumstances in either case were such that an invention might reasonably be expected to result from the carrying out of his duties; or (在正常工作職責內，或是職責外但讓與給雇用人，以及在工作職責內合理可期待的結果)
(b) the invention was made in the course of the duties of the employee and, at the time of making the invention, because of the nature of his duties and the particular responsibilities arising from the nature of his duties he had a special obligation to further the interests of the employer's undertaking. (在工作職則內因為特殊責任，以及為了公司利益義務上的發明)
(2) Any other invention made by an employee shall, as between him and his employer, be taken for those purposes to belong to the employee. (其他非職務上發明的權利屬受雇人)
法院提出的判斷原則如下，這就是歐洲在職務上發明的基本原則：
- I draw from these judgments the following principles relevant to this case:
(1) An invention made by an employee will belong to him unless it was made in the course of the categories of duty expressly identified in s.39(1): 'normal duties' or 'duties specifically assigned to him' under s.39(1)(a), or duties of a nature such that the employee has 'a special obligation to further the interests of the employer's undertaking' under s.39(1)(b). (法院重申上述section 39(a)職務上職責上的發明，或是39(b)受雇員工對公司利益的特殊義務的發明應屬雇用人。)
(2) The two categories under s.39(1)(a) are mutually exclusive. (上述section 39(1)(a)有兩種類型：受雇人的職責或是職責外但讓與給雇用人。)
(3) The meaning of 'normal duties' in s.39(1)(a) is not to be resolved by reference to characterisations such as 'ordinary', 'day to day' or 'primary' duties. (正常職責不應藉由探討何謂ordinary, day to day, primary等鑽牛角尖的方式解釋。)
(4) The starting point in defining normal duties is the contract of employment; having considered the terms of the contract one must ask: what was the employee employed to do? (定義正常職責，從雇傭合約開始，考量受雇的工作內容。)
(5) However, the contract of employment is not the sole arbiter of normal duties. The overall question is whether the employee was employed to try to innovate and if so, what general sort of areas his innovation duties covered at the relevant time, i.e. the date on which the invention was made. (但雇傭合約也非唯一考量，會整體來看，例如受雇工作是否負責創新，而創新的範圍如何？)
(6) The duties of an employee may evolve over the course of time. The actions of employee and employer may give rise to an expansion or contraction of the duties initially undertaken and/or those specified in the contract of employment, so that they become (or cease to be) normal duties. (考量受雇人的職責可能會隨時間改變，受雇人與雇主的行為可能會擴大或縮小當初合約的範圍，以及/或，使合約內指定的工作職責變得不是或是正常職責。)
(7) The duty of confidence owed by an employee to an employer may provide a guide to the scope of his normal duties. If the circumstances are such that the employee would owe an equitable duty of confidence to his employer with regard to the invention, the invention will belong to the employer pursuant to s.39. (受雇人對雇用人負有的保密責任可能提供判斷正常職責的指引，如果在特定情境下受雇人對雇用人負有發明的保密義務，相關發明屬於雇用人。)
(8) An invention is made 'in the course of' an employee's normal duties under s.39(1)(a) generally in contradistinction to being made in a frolic of his own. (在受雇人正常職責下的發明，一般與受雇人自己私下玩樂得出的發明很不相同。)
上述第(8)點很有趣。
回到本案例中，法院首先要釐清的是技術問題，在此不多談細節，這部分是要得出發明的inventive concept/進步特徵。法院判決，Mr. Kite為claim 1中進步特徵的主要部份的發明人，而Mr. Erb為其改善部分（authentication token）的發明人；而Mr. Erb單獨為系爭申請案中claim 11（其中的進步特徵）發明人。
本案中要釐清的部分是，系爭案發明是否是在Mr. Kite正常職責下的發明？根據以上"inventive concept"的判斷，Mr. Kite涉及的發明是claim 1中的主要部分，僅須就此討論。
時間：Mr. Kite在Netsweeper的工作開始於26 September 2008，合約中表明了工作內容，在後續在6 January 2009簽署的合約則包括了保密與非競爭條款，並且，Netsweeper擁有Mr. Kite開發的所有資料。
法院判定，不可否認地，系爭案claim 1發明落於Mr. Kite的正常工作職責內，這部分也是Netsweeper公司的核心技術。Netsweeper也沒有違反保密協定。
my two cents:
以上，我想算是有些理解法院的判斷邏輯，先判斷出claims中的"inventive concept"，決定誰是貢獻此特徵的"發明人"，根據"發明人"與雇主的雇傭合約，判斷若是職務上發明，專利權/申請權即屬於雇主。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言