Former employee is deemed to have already received reasonable compensation for invention
Former employee is deemed to have already received reasonable compensation for invention
The inventor of a product believes that he has not been compensated in reasonable compensation by the company selling the product. However, the company argues that the inventor has already been compensated to a reasonable extent and that the product has not generated any significant revenue.
The Patent and Market Court finds that the inventor has failed to show that the invention had more than a limited value to the company, which is why a normal salary, bonuses and benefits constituted reasonable compensation for his work.
The company C-Rad Positioning owns a patented invention called Sentinel that is used to position cancer patients correctly in radiation therapy. The inventor of Sentinel claims it is C-rad Positioning’s most prominent product, which has contributed an estimated revenue of more than SEK 400 million to the company. However, he is of the opinion that the company did not give him reasonable compensation for the invention, which is why he is bringing an action in the Patent and Market Court (PMC) with a claim for approximately SEK 20 million. C-Rad Positioning, on the other hand, claims that the invention had hardly any impact on their turnover. Furthermore, the company argues that the inventor has already received reasonable compensation for his work in the form of a competitive salary, bonuses and benefits.
The PMC states at the outset that an employer, according to Section 3 of the Act on the Right to Employees’ Inventions (LAU), has the right to take over an invention created by an employee. If the company takes over the invention, the inventor is also entitled to reasonable compensation in accordance with Section 6 of the LAU. When determining what constitutes reasonable compensation, the value of the invention must be taken into account. Furthermore, compensation shall only be paid to the extent that the value of the acquired invention exceeds what can reasonably be expected with regard to the employee’s salary and other benefits in the service.
The Court notes that a complicating factor is that Sentinel is used as one of several functions of a product called Catalyst, which is also provided by C-Rad Positioning.
Furthermore, it is the use of Catalyst as a whole that has generated significant revenue for the company. The inventor believes that Sentinel is the main reason why Catalyst has given the company such a large income and is also always included in the sale of Catalyst. Instead, it argues that Sentinel is merely an option that is not always used. Thus, the court does not see it as self-evident how much revenue Sentinel has generated, which in turn complicates the assessment of what is to be regarded as reasonable compensation to the inventor according to LAU.
According to the PMC, the evidence presented in the case shows that there is a great demand for Catalyst. It is also seen as shown that the company emphasizes Sentinel in its marketing and that the invention is fairly often included when Catalyst is sold to customers. However, in view of the investigation presented, the court does not consider itself able to determine exactly how much of the company’s revenue can be attributed to Sentinel. The court’s overall assessment is therefore that the inventor has not succeeded in showing that Sentinel had more than a relatively limited value for C-Rad Positioning. It is further stated that the inventor’s salary was normal for his position and that he enjoyed both bonuses and other benefits.PMC therefore finds that the inventor has been compensated to a reasonable extent for his work with the development of Sentinel. He is therefore not entitled to any further compensation, which is why C-Rad Positioning wins the case.