Protection of know-howpublished on Wednesday, April 24 2013 03:24:58 PM by MaPreuve | Category default
Invention and secretpublished on Wednesday, February 20 2013 11:08:11 AM by MaPreuve | Category MaPreuve
The right of Anterior personal ownership means an invention can be exploited and the secret left undisclosed.
The right of Anterior personal ownership allows a person to exploit its invention, even if a patent is subsequently filed by a third party.
In fact, according to Article L.613-7 of the Code of Intellectual Property :
"Any person, who, in good faith, on the date of filing patent priority, in the territory in where the present book applies, owned the invention that is the subject of the patent, is personally to exploit the invention despite the existence of the patent.
The right conferred by this section shall only be transferred with the operating assets, company or the part of the company to which it is attached. "
The right of Anterior personal ownership is granted to all natural persons and legal persons of private or public law.
It can only be transmitted on the occasion of an operation involving the transfer of a business but not in isolation.
This right is recognized in many countries, including European countries. Moreover, the U.S. voted this prerogative as part of the reform of U.S. patent law in September 2011.
- To benefit from this right, the conditions are the following:
- That whom alleges ownership must be in good faith,
- The invention must be known before the possible date of the patent priority request,
- The ownership must be established in the country where this right is applicable.
Proof of ownership
The person who wishes to exercise a right of Anterior personal ownership must prove the date and content of the invention with exactitude.
The mapreuve.fr service provides this evidence.
Exploitation of the invention
As part of the Anterior personal ownership, the exploitation of the invention benefits whomever enjoys this right. The law enables the commercialization of the invention by re-sellers authorized by the owner.
The advantages of Anterior Personal Protection
This right is the ideal alternative to filing a patent, it can legally protect its invention and continue to exploit it even in the presence of a subsequently deposited patent on a similar invention; it also allows you to regularly evolve your innovation.
And most importantly you will not disclose your secret know-how even though the patentee will see the description of its published invention.
The cost of proof of Anterior personal ownership is around €5 on www.mapreuve.fr. While the filing of a patent is very expensive (€5000 approx. for one country), its formalism is very onerous and the numerous controls do not guarantee that the filing of a patent application results in the issuance of a valid patent and, even if this is the case, the procedure may take several years.
Out of every 100 patents, an average of 70 will not generate any revenue, 29 will produce good results, 9 will be profitable, and only 1 will bring a fortune to its owner....
Copyright and employerspublished on Thursday, December 27 2012 12:44:09 PM by MaPreuve | Category Jurisexpert
COPYRIGHT: THE CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVE WORK
The Paris Court of Appeal recently ruled on the notion of collective work in a dispute between the company Van Cleef & Arpels, which designs, manufactures and markets high clocks and watches belonging to the group RICHEMONT to one of its employees who served for many years, according to designer within the company.
Mission it was to contribute to the realization of jewelry designs within the design team of the company, function that led him to be considered the head of the design team.
When it had been offered in 2004, a work contract to formalize working relationships existing in the form of two documents, one for "employment contract of indefinite duration creator / designer" and for the other, "Schedule Contract work exclusive transfer of copyright," he had refused to sign, believing that these documents did not correspond to reality and contained provisions on illegal regard, in particular, the sale of its copyright and the ban imposed on him from claiming any copyright or moral rights to the designs of which he was the author.
Having been dismissed for gross misconduct, after giving notice to his employer to cease in the world, any reproduction, representation and adaptation of his drawings, the employee had before the industrial tribunal to see his dismissal deemed abusive .
He felt the holder of copyright on the original drawings he had created without having sold the rights to the group Van Cleef & Arpels.
The company Van Cleef & Arpels argued, on the other hand, in the case decided in the first instance by the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (TGI Paris, Ch third section first. 19/01/2010) that the employee reported no evidence of its authorship, for failing to demonstrate that the drawings he claimed bore the stamp of his personality.
The company also argued that the contentious jewelry designs were only contributions to collective works whose rights belonged to him.
She intended to show that the drawings in question came from the aesthetic heritage of the house Van Cleef & Arpels, on the basis of notes traceability provided by its aesthetic care and organized according to themes developed historically within the home, such as flowers, nodes, loops or buttonholes.
She relied on as the "genetic code" of society, characterized by the use of figurative forms most often, asymmetrical or different worlds inspired to infer that the designer had simply draw inspiration in the bottom of archives society and to comply with the styles and aesthetics of the house.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the work of the employee's designer was part of a binding framework obliged to comply with the instructions he received from his aesthetic superiors in the creation committee established by business and draw inspiration from the bottom of the house archives.
Drawings to give the issue the quality of collective work, the Court of Appeal noted that the employee systematically sought the consent of his superiors to validate production, he faithfully transcribed observations were made on his drawings and creations resulting jewelry had always been disclosed under the employer's name, the initials of the designer most often coexisting with the stamp "copyright Van Cleef & Arpels," which tended to characterize the existence of a creation in part of a collective effort involving many people.
The collective work is defined in Article L113-2 of the Intellectual Property Code as "a work created on the initiative of a natural or legal person who edits, publishes and discloses it under his direction and his name and in which the personal contributions of the various authors involved in the development blends into the whole for which it is designed, it is not possible to assign each of them a separate right of all realized ".
Unless proved otherwise, the collective work is the property of the person or entity in whose name the work is disclosed.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the employee each drawing was only the special contribution of the latter to a collective work whose purpose was always a model of jewelry, said employee for misconduct to justify, for each of the drawings which he claimed paternity, he had a real creative autonomy and freedom in an aesthetic choice to conclude that he was the sole owner of the copyright in his drawings, in that they reflect the imprint of his personality alone.
All arguments and again eventually led the Court of Appeal to dismiss the employee of its claims and confirming ownership ab initio company Van Cleef & Arpels on rights issue models.
This decision opens a breach in the strict formality required by the Code of intellectual property under the assignment of intellectual property rights, including creations from employees.
It should allow employers when conditions are met the collective work easier to use the notion of collective work to save the constraints conclusion by employees doing creative work, contract assignment of rights relating to works.
Use of text on the webpublished on Thursday, November 29 2012 12:22:47 PM by MaPreuve | Category MaPreuve
Using a text writer on the web
The fact that this text is on the Internet does not mean it is free to use, many cases appear.
If you wish to use this document for your personal use, no permission is necessary, you can copy for free (Art. L 122-5 CPI).
If you want to download the text (full or extract) and then put it online, in this case:
• Either the author of the text allows the dissemination of his writings. What can be said on the website as a reference to such "This text may be downloaded, copied and distributed by any person, non-commercial purposes, subject to acknowledgment of the source."
• Either the author is licensed under "Creative Commons", by which it allows everyone to use the text free but under certain predefined conditions (obligation to mention the author, the prohibition to change the text, ...). The advantage is that under the conditions chosen, you will have access to a contract and the author can be assured that its readers are aware of its terms and conditions.
• Either the texts are accessible "open archives", these texts created by research centers are generally for researchers free of charge.
• Either there is no precision in this case you must request permission from the author before use, regardless of the purpose (association, commercial, ...) or area (press speaking of songs ...). Without authorization, the risk of being accused of infringement.
For its part, the author's interest to provide proof of ownership of the text before sending it on the canvas, MaPreuve solution is to provide a proof of integrity and a prior text...
employee's invention ?published on Monday, October 15 2012 01:27:18 PM by MaPreuve | Category Jurisexpert