>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Pinggu Royal-flavor Roast Chicken Factory v. Tang Guoxing (Case of Dispute over the Right to Apply for Patent)
平谷宫廷风味烤鸡厂诉唐国兴确认专利申请权纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Pinggu Royal-flavor Roast Chicken Factory v. Tang Guoxing (Case of Dispute over the Right to Apply for Patent)
(Case of Dispute over the Right to Apply for Patent)
平谷宫廷风味烤鸡厂诉唐国兴确认专利申请权纠纷案

Pinggu Royal-flavor Roast Chicken Factory v. Tang Guoxing
(Case of Dispute over the Right to Apply for Patent)@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Beijing Pinggu Royal-flavor Roast Chicken Factory.@#
Legal Representative: Zhang Tijing, director of the factory.@#
Defendant: Tang Guoxing, male, 59-year-old, a technician of Beijing Haidian Royal-flavor Roast Food Products Factory.@#
For the dispute over determining the right to apply for patent, Pinggu Royal-flavor Roast Chicken Factory brought a lawsuit to the Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality against Tang Guoxing.@#
The plaintiff claimed that: Tang Guoxing, during the period when he assumed the position of deputy technical director of the plaintiff, by taking advantage of all the material conditions provided by the plaintiff, developed a “cooking method of royal-flavor roast chicken” and gradually perfected it. This method is a job-related invention or creation, so the right to apply for the patent over this method shall belong to the plaintiff. But the defendant, with a forged certificate, applied for the patent over the non-job-related invention or creation at the patent administrative department. So the plaintiff requests the court to determine the plaintiff as the qualified applicant for the patent over the “method of cooking royal-flavor roast chicken.”@#
......

 

平谷宫廷风味烤鸡厂诉唐国兴确认专利申请权纠纷案@#
@#
原告:北京市平谷宫廷风味烤鸡厂。@#
法定代表人:张体敬,厂长。@#
被告:唐国兴,男,59岁,北京市海滨区宫廷风味烤食品厂技师。@#
原告北京市平谷宫廷风味烤鸡厂因与被告唐国兴发生确认专利申请权纠纷,向北京市中级人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称:被告唐国兴在受聘任原告的技术副厂长职务期间,利用原告为其提供的一切物质条件,发展、完善了“一种宫廷风味烤鸡的制作方法”。该方法应为职务发明创造,专利申请权依法应属于原告,但是,被告却利用伪造的证明到专利管理机关申请了非职务发明创造。请求法院确认原告为“一种宫廷风味烤鸡的制作方法”的专利申请人。@#
被告辩称:被告在祖传秘方的基础上加以完善的“一种宫廷风味烤鸡的制作方法”,是非职务发明创造,专利申请权理应归被告,且该方法的专利申请权已由专利管理机关正式确认给被告。故请法院驳回原告的诉讼请求。@#
北京市中级人民法院经审理查明:“一种宫廷风味烤鸡的制作方法”,源于被告唐国兴家的祖传秘方,后经被告在实践中加以完善而成。1985年3月,北京市平谷县大兴庄乡与中华新技术公司签订转让“宫廷风味烤鸡”技术的合同,被告作为中华新技术公司聘用的技师,代表该公司到大兴庄乡传授技术。大兴庄乡由此创办了平谷宫廷风味烤鸡厂(即本案原告,简称烤鸡厂)。1986年6月,原告在被告与中华新技术公司之间的聘任合同期满后,同被告签订了一份协议。协议约定:被告为原告负责技术培训工作和检查产品质量,提供自采的药材和宣传材料;原告对被告按特级技术师待遇,月工资300元,并免费供给吃、住;被告在原告自愿支付专利申请费和申请维持费的条件下,同意原告作为专利申请人之一,负责代办技术转让工作;被告同意从原告代办的技术转让费中提取25%,余75%作为原告办理专利事务的基金;专利权归被告所有。6月13日,原告将“一种宫廷风味烤鸡的制作方法”向中国专利局申请专利,申请书上的发明人为唐国兴、申请人为烤鸡厂。同年9月26日,原告当时的法定代表人、厂长王洪广以原告的名义向中国专利局出具证明,声明由于原告和被告对申请专利权的有关法律规定不了解,故将专利申请人错写成原告,要求将专利申请人变更为唐国兴。中国专利局根据原告的证明,将专利申请著录项目中申请人烤鸡厂变更为唐国兴。1989年3月24日,原告又持北京市平谷县公安局的证明,声称经公安机关做工作,“王洪广、唐国兴均已供认,著录项目变更证明是伪造的”,再次提请变更专利申请人。中国专利局据此证明又将专利申请人变更为原告。被告不同意上述变更,遂请求北京市专利管理局对其与原告的专利申请权纠纷进行调处。北京市专利管理局经调处后,于1991年3月4日作出处理决定,确认“一种宫廷风味烤鸡的制作方法”专利申请权属于被告。原告不服,提起诉讼。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥300.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese