In short
An employee invention is the debate on who will own an invention that arises in a service relationship. The person who made the invention and the person in whose name the application is made may not be the same person. A service invention and a free invention are not the same drawer. A numerical share is not in this article. The contract does not erase, by itself, the frame the Act draws.
A service invention and a free invention
The employer’s rights are discussed in an invention that arises from the nature of the job, the job description, and the means of the enterprise. The job description stands in the contract or in an annexed document. If it is not standing, the words “it was made during the job” do not make every invention a service invention. A free invention is discussed for an invention that remains outside the duty and the means of the enterprise. The limit is read from the concrete job writing. If there is no writing, the limit is not drawn from memory.
The inventor and the applicant can be separated. The application shows in whose name it was opened on the register. If there is no register printout, the oral sentence “in the company’s name” does not take the place of a document. The documents are the application form and the notice writing. If the two conflict, the conflicting name is marked. If there is no mark, the name is not treated as changed later.
Notice
The employee can be obliged to notify the invention to the employer. That the notice was made stands with a dated writing or a minute. If there is no minute, the sentence “I notified orally” does not take the place of the record of that moment. The employer’s claim of right should also stand in writing. If there is no request, silence does not produce the same result in every file. The result is not said before the text of the notice is seen. A period count is not in this article.
The notice should describe what the invention is. If there is no description, the sentence “I found something” does not take the place of a later patent claim. The claim carries the technical solution that stands in the specification. If the solution is not in the notice, the notice and the application are not taken for the same invention. The petition marks which sentence belongs to which paper. The mark does not erase the other party’s account.
How the contract is read
The employment contract, the invention notice, and the name of the application on the register are placed side by side. A transfer being written in the contract does not mean the invention passed to the employer of its own accord. The address of the Çankaya office does not change the institution that examines the application, or the competent authority. The authority is read from the register record and from the notice’s own document.
The discussion of price
If the employer takes the application upon itself, a discussion of a price for the employee can open. The amount of the price is not in this article. A rate is not there either. The amount is not built until the contract provision and the frame the Act draws come side by side. The frame is not pasted onto the petition as a figure. A figure that is pasted is a claim, not a document.
A licence is permission to use the invention. The permission sits in the article on a patent licence. The price in an employee invention is not a copy of a licence contract. A solution kept as a trade secret is not a patent application either. The distinction between a secret and a patent is read separately. If an application has been made, in whose name it was made sits in the article on the application. The application form is not read as if it could erase the name in the notice. If two names are standing, both stay in the file.
The distinction from a copyright work made in employment
A work produced in employment discusses, in intellectual rights, who owns the work. The distinction sits in the article on a work produced in employment. Software, a text, or a design work is not an employee invention in every file. An invention is a technical solution. A work is the subject of copyright. The two can stand side by side in the same contract. Even if they do, the type of right does not change. The contract is not treated as non-existent because it does not change. The contract shows which right’s transfer it writes. If it does not write it, a transfer is not assumed.
The decision is built when the job description, the notice, and the register come side by side. Before the decision is built, it is not said “the invention is the employer’s.” A result that is not said is not written as if service had arrived either. Service is the face of the institution’s writing. If there is no service, time does not run of its own accord. A period that does not run is not tied to a number in this article.
If the job description has changed in an annexed document, the changed text is read as well. If the old duty and the new duty conflict, the date is kept. If there is no date, which duty was in force at the moment of the invention is not chosen. A duty that is not chosen does not make the invention a service invention of its own accord.
Conclusion
An employee invention depends on the distinction between service and free, and on the notice. Not every invention becomes the employer’s of its own accord. The notice and the register are not counted as the same paper. The frame is on the intellectual property page. There is no promise of a result.
The basis is the Industrial Property Code No. 6769.