Ownership of patents arising from employee’s inventions

Ownership of patents arising from employee's inventions

Disputes between employees and employers over the rights arising from the invention developed by the employee while his/her employment contract is in force are not unusual before Brazilian Courts. 

Until the advent of the most recent Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law 9,279/96), disputes involving the ownership of the patent protecting the employee’s invention were dealt with by the application of Brazilian Labor Law (Decree-Law No. 5.452/43).

In that scenario, patents belonged to employee and employer in equal parts, except if the core of the employment contract was scientific research, that is, if the employee had been hired precisely to invent.

It was understood that the employee’s efforts to develop the creation would already be remunerated by his salary. Therefore,  the patent belonged exclusively to the employer, provided that  he made the deposit in his name within one year of its creation, under penalty of losing ownership of the invention to the employee.

However, Brazilian Industrial Property Law supplants the Labor Law in that sense, dedicating a specific chapter to deal with the subject. In fact, Chapter XIV, of Title I (Patents), lists in articles 88 to 93 the way in which ownership of the patent object of the employee’s invention must be decided.

The article 88 of Brazilian Intellectual Property Law remarks that the invention or utility model will only belong exclusively to the employer when the employee, who developed the invention, has been expressly hired for that purpose.

This is because, if the employee was hired precisely to invent, develop, create or improve a certain system or product, his or her inventive activity is the very core of the employment contract, and every invention is remunerated by the salary stipulated in the contract.

When the employee was not hired for the purpose of developing inventions, article 90 of Brazilian Industrial Property Law provides that “industrial creations” generated in this context (called “free inventions”), will belong exclusively to the employee.

 

Ownership of patents arising from employee's inventions

 

It is important to highlight the law establishes that the employee’s ownership of the patent results from the fulfillment of two requirements: having the creation been developed in complete disconnection from the employee’s obligations contained in their employment contract and the non-use of any resources of the employer.

Failure to meet the first requirement, that is, if the employment contract provides for the creation or improvement of systems and products among the employee’s obligations, as a rule flows into the employer’s ownership of the creation.

The failure to comply with the second requirement, which implies the prohibition of the use of the employer’s resources, will imply the hypothesis provided for in article 91 of Brazilian Industrial Property Law.

Indeed, such article states that the ownership of the invention will be common, in equal parts, when it results from the employee’s personal contribution and from the employer’s resources (and others), being guaranteed to the employee fair remuneration for the exploitation of the invention.

In other words, the right of industrial exploitation of the invention, through a patent, will belong to the employer, and the employee is responsible for receiving fair remuneration for their creative efforts.

However, Brazilian Industrial Property Law does not define the concept of fair remuneration. So, it is up to the parties, or to the magistrate in court to deal, to define a remuneration amount that is fair to the parties, considering the economic benefits that will be earned by the industrial application of the invention over time.

Notwithstanding the regulation given by Brazilian Law, which provides apparently simple, direct and objective provisions to decide the ownership of a patent resulting from the creation of the employee, the disputes over the patentable invention are not so simple due to the various particularities that involve the development of creation.

People are often hired informally or with employment contracts without sufficiently detailed specifications about their obligations, or that bring doubt about whether the inventive step would be included in the contractual obligations.

In this context, it will be up to the Judiciary to analyze the employment contract in light of the activities carried out by the employee and in the fair expectation of the employer to decide on the scope of the employment relationship.

On the other hand, there are situations in which it is not simple to find out whether or not the employee used employer’s resources to develop the invention, and it is necessary to find out in court what extension of the invention could be developed by the employee without the support provided by the employer.

Although Brazilian Industrial Property Law brings objective provisions to determine ownership of a patent covering an invention developed by the employee, it is certain that the factual issues involved in the creation of an invention may bring the need for intervention by the Judiciary to find out the way in which the creation took place and then apply the rules brought in law.

Author: Carlos Eduardo Nelli Principe, Associate Lawyer at Peduti Advogados.

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”
“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

Unfair competition in the Fashion Industry

time at a fashion industry

The 1st Reserved Chamber of Business Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP) dismissed the appeal brought by one company of the Apparel Industry accused of copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement is a pinnacle problem in the fashion industry. It’s not new that the fashion design sector suffers with unfair competition, but there are legal mechanisms to restrict this practice.

The lawsuit was filed by two related companies against one Brazilian luxury clothing brand.

The plaintiffs companies complained that they had clothes that were being imitated by the defendant company.

Although the plaintiffs companies do not have industrial design registrations of their creations, the following rule provided by TRIPS Agreement is applicable:

Article 25 Requirements for Protection:

“2. Each Member shall ensure that requirements for securing protection for textile designs, in particular in regard to any cost, examination or publication, do not unreasonably impair the opportunity to seek and obtain such protection. Members shall be free to meet this obligation through industrial design law or through copyright law.”

 

time at a fashion industry

 

In the first instance, the judge interpreted that the act of the Defendant was a practice of parasitic competition, taking benefit from the goodwill and reputation of a Brazilian luxury clothing brand.

On appeal, the defendant maintained that the similarities come only from the observance of global trends.

However, the Court maintained the sentence, based on the understanding that the rules of the article 195 of Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law nº. 9.279, of May 14, 1996) can be applied to the case at hand.

According to the rule laid down in article 195, items IV and V, of the IP Law:

“A crime of unfair competition is committed by the one whom:

  1. uses another person’s advertising phrase or sign, or imitates it, in order to create confusion among the products or establishments
  2. uses, improperly, another person’s trade name, title of establishment, or insignia, or sells, displays, offers for sale, or has in stock a product bearing these references;”

On June 02, The Justice Court of São Paulo, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the Appeal filed by Defendant. The Court maintained the position of the first instance in the sense that the Defendant, when imitating garments, parasitically took advantage of the plaintiff’s brand.

The unlawful conduct practiced by the defendant allows the presumption of damage to the plaintiff’s morals due to the violation of the industrial property right.

The Defendant can still appeal the decision but, according to the understanding of the majority jurisprudence, the chances of success are reduced.

Author: Sheila de Souza Rodrigues, Associate Lawyer at Peduti Advogados.

Source: TJSP reconhece a contrafação de modelos de roupas como prática de concorrência desleal (TJSP recognizes the counterfeiting of clothing models as a practice of unfair competition)

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”
“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”

Disney bets on blockchain to prevent piracy

computador com o logo do walt disney

Disney has a vested interest in keeping pirates at bay as a major content generator. The entertainment company is participating in a number of enforcement measures since the launch of its new streaming platform (Disney+) and acquired a new anti-piracy patent on April 27, 2021. 

The patent US 10,992,454 B2 intends to make it more difficult for pirates to intercept films being distributed to theaters by using a blockchain-based distribution system. 

In essence, blockchain is a method of storing information in such a way that it is difficult or impossible to change, hack, or cheat the system. It is a digital log of transactions that is duplicated and distributed across the blockchain’s complete network of computer systems. 

Considering that pirates with the correct connections can make copies during or after movies make it to theaters, the blockchain mechanism proposed by Disney may prevent unwanted prior access of unauthorized people to its intellectual property. 

Several security safeguards are currently in place to prevent leaks from occurring. For example, theaters must follow specific guidelines, and all films must be watermarked. However, Disney fears that this will not be enough to deter pirates, specially because those measures are often reactive than preventative. 

 

computador com o logo do walt disney

 

The company claims that the distribution process may be more closely monitored by establishing a secure blockchain-based solution. Among other things, It will make it impossible to watch a movie before it gets at its designated location, , and also  keeping track of how many times a movie is shown in order to prevent bad distributors from exhibiting it more than they should.

It is important to remark Disney is not the first company to consider using blockchain to prevent piracy. On January 05, 2021, the USPTO granted to Dish Network L.L.C the patent US 10,885,159 B2, which proposes a unified anti-piracy platform to tackle copyright violations on Youtube, Facebook, Telegram, and many others.

Dish’s newly patented system addresses several shortcomings in current anti-piracy measures. It does not, for example, require copyright holders to actively search for pirated content.

There is no doubt that piracy has always been a big problem for content creators. With the advancement of streaming platforms in recent years, such companies have been investing more and more in mechanisms to protect their intellectual property, with the blockchain mechanism emerging as one of the possibilities to give control over access to content available on the internet.

Blockchain systems do have a lot of different applications and combating piracy could be one of them. 

Author: Carlos Eduardo Nelli Principe, Associate Lawyer at Peduti Advogados.

Source: Disney registra patente de blockchain para combater piratas de filmes; Disney Patents Blockchain-Based Movie Distribution System to Stop Pirates; Disney Wants to Reinforce Its ‘Piracy Intelligence’ Team

“If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”
“Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.”