Employee patent
Discussion
Have any of you guys ever managed to create a patent (you as inventor), for the company that you work for. In UK law it is said any invention/IP belongs to the company, this sucks balls, unless in your contract it states you are eligible for a percentage of said patent (if it makes any money anyway) or some sort of bonus.
Anyone actually seen any benefit to there career as a patent holder, or seen substantial financial gain from it?
Lastly, a more general question/s. Why does a company patent an idea or process? When you submit a patent to the public domain all is there for competitors to see. Would it not be better to keep the idea in house and use it as an advantage over your rivals? Besides if you patent something and in the future you think some else is using your idea, it is you that has to file lawsuits etc and that costs a lot of money. How would you even know someone is infringing?
Am very new to the area of patents, so still have much to learn.
Anyone actually seen any benefit to there career as a patent holder, or seen substantial financial gain from it?
Lastly, a more general question/s. Why does a company patent an idea or process? When you submit a patent to the public domain all is there for competitors to see. Would it not be better to keep the idea in house and use it as an advantage over your rivals? Besides if you patent something and in the future you think some else is using your idea, it is you that has to file lawsuits etc and that costs a lot of money. How would you even know someone is infringing?
Am very new to the area of patents, so still have much to learn.
First part, I am not sure it is UK law, just a very common clause in most employment contracts. It's there because otherwise they pay me to come up with a brilliant widget, and I decide to take that to another company.
Second part, reasonably sure most engineering companies will have patent holders at senior positions. Not all rewards come as cash.
Third part - don't be silly. Otherwise you would have junior staff hopping around blabbing for a tenner, and then we would have to have lots more lawyers.
Second part, reasonably sure most engineering companies will have patent holders at senior positions. Not all rewards come as cash.
Third part - don't be silly. Otherwise you would have junior staff hopping around blabbing for a tenner, and then we would have to have lots more lawyers.
Generally an employer will own the inventions of an employee that relate to the business of the employer and which an employee might reasonably be expected to create during employment. So a cleaner who invents a new mobile phone app compression technology is unlikely to find that the employer owns it. In general people employed to invent are paid whether they invent or not, so their payment for the invention is their salary. Some firms do have inventor bonuses when an application is filed/foreign filed/granted. If you are employed to invent/be creative then a CV full of patents is quite impressive (like publications for a scientist)
The UK patent act does provide for an employee inventor to receive additional compensation if outstanding benefit is provided to the employer, but that is VERY difficult to obtain.
Why do people file? A patent is essentially a deal with the government - you tell them the details of your invention so that, in the future, everyone can benefit from your cleverness, and the government allow you to enforce a monopoly for up to 20 years from the filing date. Keeping the idea secret is a perfectly acceptable commercial strategy IF you can keep the invention secret. A method of production could be kept secret, but it is not possible to keep a product secret AND sell it. Once something is in the public domain any third party is free to use the idea (there may be rights preventing them copying the actual product itself). If you have a patent you have a right to enforce against third parties, without a patent there may be no action you can take.
It is up to you to enforce your own patent (you can get IP litigation insurance to help). Generally if a product is doing really well then funding the litigation might not be such an issue. Many cases are settled before they get to court anyway.
People find out about infringements in various ways, keeping an eye on the market, suddenly losing sales contracts, analysing competitor products, information from ex-employees, investigations etc...
I am happy to provide more information if you have more questions.
The UK patent act does provide for an employee inventor to receive additional compensation if outstanding benefit is provided to the employer, but that is VERY difficult to obtain.
Why do people file? A patent is essentially a deal with the government - you tell them the details of your invention so that, in the future, everyone can benefit from your cleverness, and the government allow you to enforce a monopoly for up to 20 years from the filing date. Keeping the idea secret is a perfectly acceptable commercial strategy IF you can keep the invention secret. A method of production could be kept secret, but it is not possible to keep a product secret AND sell it. Once something is in the public domain any third party is free to use the idea (there may be rights preventing them copying the actual product itself). If you have a patent you have a right to enforce against third parties, without a patent there may be no action you can take.
It is up to you to enforce your own patent (you can get IP litigation insurance to help). Generally if a product is doing really well then funding the litigation might not be such an issue. Many cases are settled before they get to court anyway.
People find out about infringements in various ways, keeping an eye on the market, suddenly losing sales contracts, analysing competitor products, information from ex-employees, investigations etc...
I am happy to provide more information if you have more questions.
Yipper said:
Patents are one of the great injustices of the modern world. In ~99% of cases, the employee invents it, the employer takes all the profit (or occasional loss).
And yet it is because of patent law that many companies come to exist in the first instance!!!If you think of the idea on you're own time it's yours. If you think of it on company time it's the company's. It's hardly an injustice.
And as mentioned above, many individuals within companies are directly rewarded within that company for their work.
Indeed. Can you imagine how much better the NHS would be if when they needed any drug for a patient instead of going to one of the global pharmaceuticals who invest billions in trying to find new commercial drugs they have to go to Gary in his bedroom who with pocket money from his granny is working on the cure for Alzheimers.
Only the mind of a 5 year old would find Pantene law an injustice.
Only the mind of a 5 year old would find Pantene law an injustice.
DonkeyApple said:
And yet it is because of patent law that many companies come to exist in the first instance!!!
If you think of the idea on you're own time it's yours. If you think of it on company time it's the company's. It's hardly an injustice.
And as mentioned above, many individuals within companies are directly rewarded within that company for their work.
As a paid inventor I am certain that if I think of an idea in my own time it also belongs to my employer, otherwise what is to stop anyone saying "I thought of that in the shower not at work so its mine"If you think of the idea on you're own time it's yours. If you think of it on company time it's the company's. It's hardly an injustice.
And as mentioned above, many individuals within companies are directly rewarded within that company for their work.
Some companies give bonuses based on patents, in the US they have to give a nominal amount ($1 ? ) to inventors.
Ben
BigBen said:
As a paid inventor I am certain that if I think of an idea in my own time it also belongs to my employer, otherwise what is to stop anyone saying "I thought of that in the shower not at work so its mine"
As a "paid inventor", I'd have thought you'd be fairly well aware of the old adages about "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration" and "I've not failed, I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work". Who's paying the time for that, the materials for that, the equipment for that?DonkeyApple said:
Indeed. Can you imagine how much better the NHS would be if when they needed any drug for a patient instead of going to one of the global pharmaceuticals who invest billions in trying to find new commercial drugs they have to go to Gary in his bedroom who with pocket money from his granny is working on the cure for Alzheimers.
Only the mind of a 5 year old would find Pantene law an injustice.
Nice try, but no cigar Only the mind of a 5 year old would find Pantene law an injustice.
Check the case of GE Healthcare 2011 under the UK Patents Act.
Two employees were awarded, by the court, ~£2m from their employer's ~£25m royalties for a medical patent they invented. Their employer tried to keep all the profit for themselves. The court ruled the employee should get a share of profit.
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
The number of employers unfairly and illegally hoarding their employees' inventions is huge. One of the biggest hidden scandals in modern business. Employees invent the product and employers keep the profit. So many people have been, and are being, swindled out of their rightful money, just because of patent or invention ignorance.
Make more, pay less.
Only the mind of a 3-yearold would fail to see the injustice.
randlemarcus said:
First part, I am not sure it is UK law, just a very common clause in most employment contracts. It's there because otherwise they pay me to come up with a brilliant widget, and I decide to take that to another company.
Second part, reasonably sure most engineering companies will have patent holders at senior positions. Not all rewards come as cash.
Third part - don't be silly. Otherwise you would have junior staff hopping around blabbing for a tenner, and then we would have to have lots more lawyers.
The actual thing which is called a "widget ". I believe that its inventor has benefited immensely from it.Second part, reasonably sure most engineering companies will have patent holders at senior positions. Not all rewards come as cash.
Third part - don't be silly. Otherwise you would have junior staff hopping around blabbing for a tenner, and then we would have to have lots more lawyers.
Yipper said:
Nice try, but no cigar
Check the case of GE Healthcare 2011 under the UK Patents Act.
Two employees were awarded, by the court, ~£2m from their employer's ~£25m royalties for a medical patent they invented. Their employer tried to keep all the profit for themselves. The court ruled the employee should get a share of profit.
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
The number of employers unfairly and illegally hoarding their employees' inventions is huge. One of the biggest hidden scandals in modern business. Employees invent the product and employers keep the profit. So many people have been, and are being, swindled out of their rightful money, just because of patent or invention ignorance.
Make more, pay less.
Only the mind of a 3-yearold would fail to see the injustice.
Sorry this is patent nonsense Check the case of GE Healthcare 2011 under the UK Patents Act.
Two employees were awarded, by the court, ~£2m from their employer's ~£25m royalties for a medical patent they invented. Their employer tried to keep all the profit for themselves. The court ruled the employee should get a share of profit.
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
The number of employers unfairly and illegally hoarding their employees' inventions is huge. One of the biggest hidden scandals in modern business. Employees invent the product and employers keep the profit. So many people have been, and are being, swindled out of their rightful money, just because of patent or invention ignorance.
Make more, pay less.
Only the mind of a 3-yearold would fail to see the injustice.
If the employer doesn't provide the salary, facilities, support, training and give overall direction, then would the "inventor" be working on such projects ? Probably building on the work that has go before, or on specific design problems, or customer issues as framed by the company.
If they want to be an unpaid inventor, they should go and do so. Probably in a University. If you work for a commercial firm, in product development then....duh !
SantaBarbara said:
Look up in your dictionary and see what "widget " means please?
I can believe I am helping an AI to learn, on the day it sees all humans as a threat and launches a first strike I will regret this...but Two different things
A widget has been a term in manufacturing/engineering for a long time, used as an interchangeable unit of production. Eg we can make 10,000 widgets per month
You are talking about the software Widget.
randlemarcus said:
SantaBarbara said:
The actual thing which is called a "widget ". I believe that its inventor has benefited immensely from it.
Given widget is a metsyntactic variable. I believe you are talking out of your bottom. As. Usual.http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4832968
The patent was assigned to Arthur Guinness & Co by the inventors, who worked for Guinness and developed it as part of an internal project.
TooMany2cvs said:
I think Botbara may be referring to the "widget" in the bottom of "draught" beer cans.
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4832968
The patent was assigned to Arthur Guinness & Co by the inventors, who worked for Guinness and developed it as part of an internal project.
Correct that is what I was thinking of.http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4832968
The patent was assigned to Arthur Guinness & Co by the inventors, who worked for Guinness and developed it as part of an internal project.
I believe that I have met the inventor.
SantaBarbara said:
TooMany2cvs said:
I think Botbara may be referring to the "widget" in the bottom of "draught" beer cans.
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4832968
The patent was assigned to Arthur Guinness & Co by the inventors, who worked for Guinness and developed it as part of an internal project.
Correct that is what I was thinking of.http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US4832968
The patent was assigned to Arthur Guinness & Co by the inventors, who worked for Guinness and developed it as part of an internal project.
I believe that I have met the inventor.
Yipper said:
DonkeyApple said:
Indeed. Can you imagine how much better the NHS would be if when they needed any drug for a patient instead of going to one of the global pharmaceuticals who invest billions in trying to find new commercial drugs they have to go to Gary in his bedroom who with pocket money from his granny is working on the cure for Alzheimers.
Only the mind of a 5 year old would find Pantene law an injustice.
Nice try, but no cigar Only the mind of a 5 year old would find Pantene law an injustice.
Check the case of GE Healthcare 2011 under the UK Patents Act.
Two employees were awarded, by the court, ~£2m from their employer's ~£25m royalties for a medical patent they invented. Their employer tried to keep all the profit for themselves. The court ruled the employee should get a share of profit.
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
The number of employers unfairly and illegally hoarding their employees' inventions is huge. One of the biggest hidden scandals in modern business. Employees invent the product and employers keep the profit. So many people have been, and are being, swindled out of their rightful money, just because of patent or invention ignorance.
Make more, pay less.
Only the mind of a 3-yearold would fail to see the injustice.
Yipper said:
Patents are one of the great injustices of the modern world
You should have a read into the history of the Post It note.The chap who invented them was employed by 3M as a product developer / scientist. He was developing a super-strong adhesive and during the process, accidentally developed a low-tack reusable adhesive. As this was not part of the brief, he and another developed it further within an officially sanctioned bootlegging policy (allowing motivated, creative individuals to develop things outside of the normal structure of things but still within the confines of 3M employment). Post It notes then went onto to become a massive commercial success for which the inventor received no additional remuneration or bonus.
He sued 3M - a suit which they settled out of court. They had no legal need to do so - he was employed to do what he did; invent new products. They settled more out of a gesture of goodwill to appease shareholders. He filed another suit recently for $300m 9IIRC) - which was thrown out by the judge.
There's two ways of looking at it.
3M had invested the money and taken the risk to enable the employee to do the job he was paid to do. Why should he be given a slice of the pie?
But the commercial success of the product was exceptional - why shouldn't 3M have given him a slice of the success and motivate others to develop similar successes.
Ultimately, it comes down to the morals of the company concerned but at the same time, inventors need to accept that if they develop something in the risk-free environment of gainful employment, then it works the other way too.
A school friend of mine took a graduate job 20 years ago with a pharma in product development. He negotiated a clause entitling him to a net % of sales relating to products he was instrumental in developing. His nickname is Dr H Rhoid after a product he developed a few years later and he is exceedingly comfortable, not just when sitting. It's perfectly common for companies to reward staff who develop new products, which is why others feel they have a sufficient case to argue same even when they haven't added it to their employment contract.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff