Patent Agreement Joint-Ownership
Intellectual property rights, which are in common, face challenges at every stage of the patent process and different business requirements result in different patent coverage requirements. The drafting, filing and follow-up of a patent thus becomes complicated and costly, and the end result may not be optimal for some parties or for all parties involved. The granting of a common patent license reduces the value for both owners if a license from both owners is available. There is no effective way to agree, not to prosecute or to assert. The transfer of joint intellectual property rights is also a challenge. The value is diluted because it is possible to transfer only the owner`s share, not the entire rights. Similarly, warranties generally require full ownership. When notifying patents essential for an interoperability standard, both owners must declare the same rules and commit to making the declaration effective. Where patent disputes are pending, most countries require that both owners be considered plaintiffs and have no common interest, the patent is in fact of no value. As far as corporate accounting is concerned, it can be difficult to include in the company`s balance sheet the correct financial assessment of intellectual property rights with shared property. Many of the problems that can result from common ownership of the IP can be resolved by agreements reached at the beginning of a project. Agreements should clearly specify who owns intellectual property, how rights are distributed among parties, and what different scenarios may arise, such as the application and licensing or sale of intellectual property rights. Gottlieb Rackman – Reisman can help solve these problems properly before you get into trouble.
Conflicts arise later because the project has been successful and there is a lot of money at stake. Repairing things at this point can be much more difficult and more expensive. The function of a brand is to identify the source of goods or services. Common ownership of the trademark is less common than common ownership of patents or copyrights. If it occurs, it jeopardizes the basic identification of the brand`s sources. There are a number of alternative approaches and better approaches that are worth considering instead of approving common intellectual property. One party may own all of the intellectual property generated by collaborative innovation and concede it to the other party. The intellectual property portfolio created can be distributed among the parties on the basis of the special interests of each party. If several parties are involved in collaborative innovation and there is a large intellectual property portfolio, a “patent pool” agreement may be considered, with the appointment of a director. Or the intellectual property portfolio can be distributed among the parties to spread costs and provide coverage with cross-licensing.
China`s patent law was first passed in 1984 and amended twice since then, in 1992 and 2000. China passed the third amendment to the PRC Patent Act in 2008, which came into force in 2009. One of the significant changes to this amendment was co-ownership, as the current legislation did not address the rights of patent co-owners. The new law now contains a provision that defines the rights of patent co-owners. It provides that a co-owner, unless the co-owners agree otherwise, has the right to operate the common patent alone or to grant a non-exclusive licence to a third party for the operation of that patent, and that all royalty taxes resulting from such a licence must be distributed among all co-owners.