II PK 260/09 KI-generiert

Patent rights require employer investment, not just employee use of prior skills or knowledge.

Geschäftsnummer II PK 260/09

Gericht / Behörde Sąd Najwyższy

Rechtsordnung

Polen (PL)

Entscheiddatum 2010-03-08

Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)

Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's cassation appeal regarding patent ownership for a research project completed by former employees. The court held that merely utilizing prior work experience and skills does not automatically grant the employer patent rights under the Industrial Property Law. Consequently, the court ruled that patent entitlement depends on the employer's financial, organizational, and technical investment rather than the employee's general duties.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Art. 11 ust. 3 ustawy o prawie własności przemysłowej; Patent rights vest in the employer only when the invention results from the employer's financial, organizational, and technical investment, not merely from the employee's use of prior skills or knowledge acquired during employment.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert

patent ownership employer investment employee skills industrial property law research project prior knowledge casation appeal

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert

Art. 11 ust. 3 of the Industrial Property Law

Art. 1, 32, 36 and 46 of the Act on Research and Development Units

Art. 25 ust. 3 of the Industrial Property Law

Art. 63 of the Industrial Property Law

Art. 100 § 2 pkt 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure

art. 100 § 2 pkt 4 k.p

art. 233 § 1 k.p.c

art. 328 § 1 k.p.c

art. 328 § 2 k.p.c

art. 3983 § 1 k.p.c

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert

Supreme Court dismisses cassation appeal based solely on facts or evidence evaluation as inadmissible under new Civil Procedure Code.

RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ Dnia 26 kwietnia 2006 r.

Supreme Court dismisses cassation appeal on insurance contract misrepresentation regarding non-factory immobilizer. The court allows the insurer's refusal based on false declaration. The court held that the non-factory immobilizer did not increase risk. The court ruled that the false declaration excludes coverage. The court found no procedural violation in the judgment. The court determined the appeal was inadmissible. The court rejected the claim for refund of costs.

Volltext