II PK 260/09 Generato dall'IA

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

Numero d'incarto II PK 260/09

Autorità giudiziaria Sąd Najwyższy

Giurisdizione

Polonia (PL)

Data della decisione 2010-03-08

Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)

Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

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.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

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.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA

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

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA

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

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA

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.

Testo completo