專利權和專利申請案的內容，其實就是不同法定權利之組合。其中最重要的法定權利就是排他權，但是這僅僅只是針對於特定國家或是國家組合，並且只會在專利申請經過核准，並且已滿足特定的專利性要件下才會發生。另一種不那麼廣為人知之法定權利範例，就是提出主張該發明之專利申請案，並且首次被指名為「申請人」之人（可能就是發明人或是其之權利的繼受人），就具有在其他國家提出相同之專利保護請求的權利。

如同其他的智慧財產權一般，其等係被稱為「無形財產權」，因為其等所賦予給申請人的合法權益係可以被視為資產：其等可以被讓與（類似於出售）或是授權（寬鬆的類似用語為租賃）或是用來作為質押擔保（抵押）。這些處置方式都可以透過撰寫相關協議來達成該等資產之轉移。

然而，為了從該等資產的轉移中獲益，就必須採用法律認可之方式，來撰寫這些協議以彰顯其之價值。而這些協議，可能會因為這些法定權利，將僅適用於特定區隔之不同商業環境中，例如橫跨不同市場或國界，甚或是適用於全球等等的事實，而更進一步的複雜化。

舉例來說，關於誰可以主張其擁有某發明的權利，在歐洲是有所不同的，其中認為自己取得該發明權利的人（例如透過支付相關研究經費而取得），係被允許提出專利申請。另一方面，在美國則是規定該發明必須以發明人的名義提出申請，然後在申請日之後進行讓與。因此，無論是在美國或歐洲，若是不將這種差異納入考量，就可能會在如何維持這些藉著協議而取得之專利權的有效性上形成問題。

此外，專利的法定權利係為一在特定的時間 （也就是申請日）由所研發之技術所衍生出來的權利。其係為自申請日開始，存續長達20年之排他權，因而必須將未來的經濟規劃，以及/或是未來的技術發展納入考量。這也就是為什麼這些法定權利之相關協議，可能會包括在協議撰寫當時尚未存在之未來衍生權利的約定。只不過此一作法仍然會是有問題的，因為這樣的約定可能會被視為排他權濫用，因其是以單一專利涵蓋了整個技術領域，可能會被視為違背反托拉斯法的規定，而使得此項協議無效。

從上述內容可知，雇用法律專家來編寫這類協議將會是非常重要的，因法律專家可以儘可能取得專利/專利申請案的最大權利，同時不會有產生相當風險的錯誤。而對於公司行號來說，如何界定其目前與未來的目標，也會是很重要的，如此一來，法律專家就可以把這些目標盡可能地結合至該等法律文件中。然而，在簽定協議當時，並非總是可以取得這些法律專業見解。所以，在這種情況下，請務必要先列出一些應該永遠要置入任何協議中之關鍵議題的清單。

例如，該協議應該要包含將該法定權利視為一項資產的描述。這可以簡單的透過專利號碼，或者在不同的情況下，透過以例如「屬於X之智慧財產權資產」等更為廣泛的定義方式來加以註明。很明顯地，為了使該協議具有法律上的價值，該資產就必須取得約因（對價關係），而因此在該協議中也就必須提及此一約因（對價關係）。這約因通常會是指金錢。在許多情況下，這樣的對價關係甚至可以只是象徵性的（譬如新台幣1元），而只是該協議的一個必要成立要件。

還有，該協議應該由權利擁有者來署名並註明日期。由於專利是一種排他權，而此協議將約定不主張擁有者的排他權利，這也就是為什麼進行簽署與註明日期，從而證實該項協議已被其接受，將會是很重要的。基於相同的理由，權利擁有者也可以將他/她/它本身註明為相關專利局所認可之權利擁有者。因為繼受權利的一方將被假定為是「自願且有意」接受這樣的權利。

而且，該協議的日期應該要依循一定的邏輯規則，也就是不能授予已經過期的權利。舉例來說，享用優先權之權利，不能在優先權存續期間（在大多數情況下為首次提出申請後12個月內）之後讓渡予其他人，因為在該日期之後，即使雙方都能從中獲益（例如透過添加其他人的優先權來挽救專利申請案），享用優先權之權利仍將因為其已喪失而不能進行讓與。

再者，專利以及專利申請權都可以由一個以上的個體作為其之擁有者。這意味著一項轉移協議必需要取得全體擁有者的同意，才能實施該專利/專利申請案之權利。人們無法經由協議內容，來取得運用該權利之百分之一的權能，只能是「取得權利」或「未取得權利」兩種狀況。因此，該協議應當由該權利的全體擁有者來進行簽署。

另外要注意的是，專利權是由國家透過專利局而賦予專利權人的，所以在專利局與專利權所有人之間需要進行不斷的互動。因此，許多國家的法律制度都要求應該要知會專利局此等協議的存在。舉例來說，可能是必須要向專利局提供這些協議的副本（雖然可以移除需保密的部分），來證實權利發生移轉。

作者： 郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師 現任： 北美智權教育訓練處 ／歐洲專利律師 經歷： Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師 Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 歐洲專利局 實習生 英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系，生化碩士 英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院，智財管理碩士

Agreements relating to patents / patent applications
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney

Patents and patent applications are a combination of legal rights. The most important legal right is that of a monopoly right, but that is only for a specific country or collection of countries and only once a patent application has been granted and satisfies specific patentability requirements. An example of another legal right that is not so well known is that filing a patent application claiming the invention for the first time gives the “applicant” (be it an inventor or his successor in title) the right to file for the same patent protection in other countries.

As with other intellectual property rights, they are known as “intangible assets” because the legal rights they confer on the applicant can be treated as assets:  they can be assigned (analogy to being sold) or licensed (a loose analogy is rented) or even used as collateral (mortgage). Such treatment is achieved by drafting agreements proving transfer of such assets.

However, to benefit from transferring such assets, one needs to draft these agreements in a manner which recognizes certain legal rules that support their value. These agreements may be further complicated by the fact that the legal right applies to a business environment that can be compartmentalized within very specific domains, such as across markets or national borders or even apply over the entire world. For example, the rules regarding who is entitled to an invention vary from Europe, where the person who believes he has earned the right to the invention (through for example paying for the research) is allowed to file the patent. In the US on the other hand, the rule is that the invention must be filed in the name of the inventor and then assigned after that date. Hence, not taking account of such differences may lead to problems with maintaining valid patent rights acquired via an agreement in either the US or Europe.

Further, the patent legal right is something that derives its right from developing technology at a specific time – the filing date. Its monopoly right may exist for up to 20 years from then, leading to the necessity of taking into account future economic plans and/or future technological developments. That is why agreements regarding such legal rights may include obligations on future developments of rights which do not exist at the time of drafting the agreement. This could nonetheless be problematic because such rules may be seen as an abuse of the monopoly right by covering an entire field of technology with one patent and that may be seen as falling foul of anti-trust rules which would invalidate such an agreement.

The above shows why it is very important to use legal experts in preparing such agreements to be confident of obtaining the most of an acquired patent/patent application right and not falling foul of certain dangers. It is also important for the business to define its present and future goals so that the legal expert can incorporate them as well as possible in the document. However such legal expertise is not always available at the time an agreement may be made. In such cases, please find a list of few essential issues which should always be inserted in any agreement.

The agreement should contain a description of the legal right being treated as an asset. This could be identified simply by patent number or, depending on the case, by a more generic definition, such as “intellectual property assets belonging to X”. Obviously, for the agreement to have a legal value, the asset must obtain consideration and therefore the consideration should also be mentioned in the agreement. This is generally money. In many cases, such consideration can even be nominal (say 1NTD), where the agreement is only a necessary formality.

The agreement should be signed and dated by the proprietor of the right. Being an exclusive right, it is his right to give away and that is why it is important for his dated signature be present, thus proving his acceptance of the agreement. For the same reason, it makes sense that such a proprietor identifies himself/herself/itself as the same person who the relative patent office recognizes as owner of that right. The party who receives the right is assumed to accept such rights willingly.

The dating of the agreement should follow some logical rules – they cannot confer rights which have already passed. For example, a right to priority cannot be assigned to another at date later than when the priority right exists (12 months from first filing in most cases), because after that date, the right to priority is lost and cannot then be given after, even though the parties may both benefit from it (to salvage a patent application by adding somebody else’s priority).

Patent and patent application rights may be owned by more than one entity as their proprietor. This means that an agreement transferring such rights has to receive the consent of all the parties who are owners to be able to practice the monopoly right of the patent/patent application. One cannot obtain, through an agreement, a percentage of the right to use such rights – either one has it or one does not. Hence the agreement should be signed by all proprietors of such a right.

Be wary that patent rights are given to the patent owner by the State through the patent office and this requires the constant interaction between the patent office and patent proprietor.

As a result many countries’ legal systems demand that the patent offices be informed of such agreements.  For example, furnishing a copy of the agreement may be necessary (though confidential parts may be removed) to a patent office to prove the transfer.

The above are only some guiding examples to consider at the time an agreement is made. Most agreements are much more complicated and require much more thought in drafting the agreement before the actual date of transfer. It is always advised to seek legal expertise for such situations so as to avoid possible problems.

Author: Stefano John, European Patent Attorney Experiences： European Patent Attorney, Bryers Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi Internship, EPO

Facebook 按讚馬上加入北美智權報粉絲團