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

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Employee’s invention in research and development

22. June 2020

The compensation of an Employee’s invention in Germany in the field of research and development is a special topic, because there are compensation-free and compensation-relevant actions. The Arbitration Board has made relevant decisions on this issue on several occasions.

Diensterfindung Forschung und Entwicklung

In principle, the type and amount of the compensation according to § 12 ArbEG (German Employee Invention Act (ArbEG)) must be determined by agreement between the employer and the employee within a reasonable period of time after claiming the service invention. In the field of research and development, this is a special issue, because there are acts which are free of compensation and acts which are relevant to compensation – and at the same time, there are particularly many service inventions. A claim for remuneration of the employee, on the other hand, already arises with the claim, but only on the merits, in fact initially in the amount of EUR 0 – until the employer exploits the invention economically (§ 9 ArbEG).

In the case of a service invention in the field of research and development, the Arbitration Board has made several relevant decisions which provide a good orientation for the remuneration of a Employee’s invention in the field of research and development.

Research and development activities without remuneration

In principle, there are acts in research and development which are free of compensation, i.e. where there is no entitlement to compensation for the Employee’s invention. This is due to the claim that inventions should serve the progress of technology. And every invention, however, first of all requires time and testing.

Test acts to bring about technical and economic marketability are free of remuneration. In principle, the economic exploitability in the sense of § 9 (2) ArbEG is not yet determined as long as the employer examines and tests the invention (§ 11 ArbEG in connection with Directive No. 23).

Accordingly, the testing acts free of compensation include, on the one hand, the research on the object of the invention itself, but also the research of further complexes within the scope of a comprehensive research project with the object of the invention.

In practice, however, this is often not easy to specify, especially if a project consists of several individual components. In this respect, the Arbitration Board has decided (Arb.Erf. 36/07) that the partial use of individual components cannot be understood as use on a commercial scale in a project which can only be commercially exploited when all individual components are coordinated.

In other words: The invention is only commercially exploitable in the sense of § 9 (2) ArbEG if the entire system functions as such.

Remuneration-relevant actions in research and development

However, the employee is entitled to compensation for his or her service invention if the invention is no longer the subject of research to obtain knowledge, but the employer uses the invention as a means of research.

Even if the teaching of an Employee’s invention patent has not been used in the performance of a research and/or development order, but the Employee’s invention was causal for the award of such an order, then the advantage of the order acquisition causally based on the invention must be compensated. A prerequisite for this, however, is that the research and/or development order causally based on the service invention has also yielded actual profit for the employer.

In such a case, the Arbitration Board usually sets an invention value for the calculation of the inventor’s remuneration at about 20% of the profit made.

Purchase price for an Employee’s invention transferred to the employer

Companies often also have agreements (“Contract Research and Devolopment Agreement”) that an Employee’s invention that arises in the course of a research or development contract is to be transferred to the employer.

The purchase price cannot be arbitrarily determined for this purpose, as the Arbitration Board has also made concrete specifications on this issue. As a rule, an empirical value of 1 % of the order sum is to be applied, therefore a gross purchase price for a service invention which was created within the scope of a research or development order and transferred to the employer in the amount of 8 % of the order sum is appropriate, the arbitration board determined in the decision Arb.Erf. 57/11.

Provision of the development object relevant for remuneration?

Research and development often begins with a feasibility study followed by the construction and provision of the development object. Is the provision of the development object relevant for remuneration?

Such a case was also decided by the arbitration board (Arb.Erf. 25/13). The employer invoked RL No. 23 (1), according to which testing activities to bring about technical and economic marketability are regularly free of remuneration. In the trial, no distribution had taken place and thus no economic usability of the service invention.

However, it was clear from the corresponding contract for the research and development task that “development, construction, (…) qualification and delivery of a (…) for (…) demonstration at (…)” had been agreed. The requirement of delivery was decisive here and led to a claim for remuneration from the Employee’s invention.

The Arbitration Panel explained that a research and development agreement on the development, construction, qualification and delivery can also include the provision of the object of development without this having sales-like features and being characterized as sales of inventive step goods.

However, if the contract also includes the delivery of a specific system that has been designed ready for installation, then this part of the contract appears as a sales transaction and thus as relevant for compensation, the Arbitration Board ruled.

Financing of research and development not relevant

According to the constant practice of the arbitration board, it is basically irrelevant whether the employer finances the test itself or, for example, receives public funding to make the test possible.

Do you have questions about an Employee’s invention in Germany?

Our patent law firm has extensive expertise in the field of patent law and the law governing Employee’s invention.

We would be pleased to represent your interests both before the arbitration board and in any court proceedings that may become necessary. Please feel free to take advantage of our consulting offer.


 

Sources:

Relevant Decisions of the German Arbitration Board

Image:

dattavispute0 | pixabay.com | CCO License

 

  • share  9 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconArbitration Board,  employee's invention,  research and development,  economic exploitation,  purchase price,  order acquisition,  delivery,  construction,  object of development,  turnover business,  RL No. 23,  compensation service invention,  compensation service invention research and development,  compensation relevant action in research and development,  § 9 ArbEG,  Arb.Erf. 57/11,  Arb.Erf. 25/13

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

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
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Bacardi wins in trademark dispute Vodka 42 BELOW 20. January 2021
  • HALLOUMI vs. BBQLOUMI: Cyprus loses again in trademark dispute 20. January 2021
  • Short word marks and similarity: First letter is not everything 19. January 2021
  • Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile? 18. January 2021

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:

18. January 2021
Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile?

Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile?

15. January 2021
BGH ‘Cigarette package’: Extension of undisclosed features in EU patent

BGH ‘Cigarette package’: Extension of undisclosed features in EU patent

11. January 2021
Patent for coding of audio signals confirmed by German BPatG

Patent for coding of audio signals confirmed by German BPatG

8. January 2021
GAIA-X: German funding program for European Cloud

GAIA-X: German funding program for European Cloud

5. January 2021
Employee invention of managing directors or board members?

Employee invention of managing directors or board members?

4. January 2021
4IR and industry 4.0: Statistics of International Patent Applications

4IR and industry 4.0: Statistics of International Patent Applications

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

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
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form