• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Remuneration of an employee invention in second source license agreement

31. May 2019

A Second source license agreement influences the employee inventor remuneration in Germany. For the calculation of the remuneration of an employee invention, the invention values of customary license agreements are to be derived from these agreements.

Second source license agreement influences inventor remuneration

second source license agreementA second source license agreement is widely used in the supply industry. Such a second-source license agreement enables manufacturers to purchase inventive components from other suppliers as well. For the calculation of the remuneration of an employee invention, the invention values of customary license agreements are to be derived from these agreements.

For a patentable employee invention confers a monopoly right on the employer (§ 9, 33 German PatG). If he uses such an employee  invention, he makes use of this monopoly right. An employer must therefore compensate his employee and employee inventor for what he would have to pay a freelance inventor for the use of the monopoly-protected technical apprenticeship, determined using the licence analogy.

If, however, an invention is used to manufacture products distributed on the market, the net sales which the parties to the licence would have based on a normal and customary licence agreement must first be determined in order to determine the value of the invention. This was described in detail in a decision of the Arbitration Board of the DPMA.

Amount of remuneration entitlement

The amount of the remuneration claim is determined in accordance with § 9.2 ArbnEG (German law for employee’s inventions (in German: Arbeitnehmererfindungsgesetz (ArbnEG)) – in addition to the position of the employee inventor in the company and the company’s share in the creation of the employee’s invention – by the economic exploitability of the employee’s invention. This includes the licensing, sale and actual use of the patented service invention in one’s own business, as in the present case. The Arbitration Board also points out that the correct technical and economic reference value depends to a large extent on the influence of monopoly-protected technology on the product.

According to the case-law of the Federal Court of Justice, the technical-economic (functional) unit must be linked to the invention, which is still significantly influenced by the invention or its functions are significantly influenced (Federal Court of Justice of 17.11.2009 – Ref.: X ZR 137/07 – Türinnenverstärkung). The typical scope for calculation on the respective product market is therefore also reflected in the license rate framework customary on the respective product market: product lines with relatively low margins, such as the automotive supply sector, have a relatively low license rate framework, while product lines with relatively high margins, such as medical technology, have a much higher license rate framework.

Graduation is appropriate for high revenues

If an inventor participates for example in the market success of an important automotive supplier, he also participates in sales shares that are not only attributable to the invention but also to the company’s reputation for quality and its sales and service network. Since this is the case, the differentiation of the license rate puts the value of the invention in a reasonable proportion to the significance of the invention for the turnover, the Arbitration Board decided. The BGH (decision of 4.10.1988 – Ref.: X ZR 71/86 – Vinyl chloride) had rightly made it clear that the question of staggering high turnover was a question of the appropriateness of remuneration within the meaning of § 9.1  ArbnEG and that Directive No. 11 was not a binding provision but an aid.

Reverse ratio of license charge to remaining profits

In concluding a second-source licence agreement, the Arbitration Board argued that the licensor must be interested in compensating lost profits as far as possible by skimming off the profits accruing to the competitor also entitled to supply. Consequently, licence fees agreed in second-source licence agreements will normally be significantly higher than those agreed in „normal“ licence agreements. The principle of experience applies – albeit with reservations – that the maximum burden with license rates is usually 20 – 25 % of the EBIT margin (OLG Düsseldorf of 9 October 2014 – Ref.: I-2 U 15/13). Consequently, a second-source licence agreement would be more likely to have the inverse ratio of licence burden and remaining profits than a market-standard licence agreement, i.e. a ratio of 3:1 to 4:1.

License rates from a second-source license agreement must be adjusted

The Arbitration Board of DPMA therefore proposed to assume a factor of 4:1 in order to also do justice to the question of staggering. In order to infer from a second-source license agreement a license agreement customary in the market, license rates from second-source license agreements must be corrected to a ratio of 3:1 to 4:1, the Arbitration Board formulated as an unofficial guiding principle for the calculation of the remuneration of a German employee invention.

 

Do you need counsel in questions of Employee Invention?

Our attorneys possess extensive expertise in the field of employees’ inventions, enabling us to provide counsel to both, the company and the employee, regarding all questions in relation to the Law on Employees’ Inventions.

 

Sources:

Arbitration Board of DPMA Arb.Erf. 30/16 (in German)

Image:

Free_Photos /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconLicenses,  Patent Law Tag iconcase law,  employee's invention,  employer,  Federal Supreme Court,  Germany,  Invention,  inventor remuneration,  License rates,  Patent,  remuneration,  remuneration claims,  remuneration entitlement,  scope for calculation,  second source license,  Second source license agreement

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Licenses

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.