"Will Assign" Is NOT Assign: AVT v. HTC (Fed. Cir. 2018)

本案重點在聘僱合約中的文字 "will assign"，是否發生專利權移轉的法律效果。法院認為沒有，因此原告因當事人不適格而敗訴。本案值得所有的合約審閱人員注意。本文順便討論如果 "will assign" 不行，那合約中要用甚麼用語會比較好，以及其風險為何。

判決文：Advanced Audio Technologies v. HTC (Fed. Cir., January 11, 2018)


這個案子本身的重點不難。AVT的專利之前輾轉經過三次移轉，其中第一次移轉是基於三個
發明人之一Vivian Hsiun跟公司之間的聘僱合約 (Employment Agreement) 中的文字：

I agree that I will promptly make full written disclosure to the Company, will hold in trust for the sole right and benefit of the Company, and will assign to the Company all my right, title, and interest in and to any and all inventions, original works of authorship, developments, improvements or trade secrets which I may solely or jointly conceive or develop or reduce to practice, or cause to be conceived or developed or reduced to practice, during the period of time I am in the employ of the Company.

地方法院引用了Arachnid, Inc. v. Merit Industries, Inc., 939 F.2d 1574, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1991)。當年法院認為合約中 "will be assigned" 文字，只是移轉的承諾 (a promise to assign)，而非已經移轉，所以本案的 "will assign" 也沒有發生立刻移轉的效果。由於專利權一開始就沒有移轉，後來發明人也沒有履行過她的移轉承諾，所以該部分的專利權並沒有移轉到AVT。這造成AVT當事人不適格，所提訴訟被法院撤銷。上訴法院確認了這點。

本案另有一個困難的程序爭議問題：專利權共有人中，如果有一個不願意起訴，其他共有人是否可以起訴，並依美國聯邦民事訴訟法第19條，由法院裁定將不願起訴的共有人列為非自願原告 (involuntary plaintiff)？這個爭議問題在O'Malley法官的協同意見書中有詳細討論，有興趣者可以參考。

* * *

看完後可能有審約法務會問：員工在簽聘僱合約的時候，發明還沒出現，如果不用 "will assign"，那要怎麼寫才能保護公司呢？

這個問題的答案，是用魔法用語 "hereby"。聯邦巡迴上訴法院在FilmTec Corp. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 939 F. 2d 1568 (Fed. Cir., 1991) 中，確立了後來所謂的 "未來自動移轉" 。當時的合約是這樣寫的：

agrees to grant and does hereby grant to the Government the full and entire domestic right, title and interest in [any invention, discovery, improvement or development (whether or not patentable) made in the course of or under this contract or any subcontract (of any tier) thereunder].

Id. at 1570.

前面的agrees to grant是一般的移轉承諾沒問題，但後面的 "hereby grant" 到底是grant了甚麼？在解讀這個合約文字時，上訴法院認為，在發明做出之前就移轉發明相關權利，可以看成是移轉 "預期利益 (expectant interest)" 。預期利益的移轉是有效移轉：

If an assignment of rights in an invention is made prior to the existence of the invention, this may be viewed as an assignment of an expectant interest. An assignment of an expectant interest can be a valid assignment.

Id. at 1572.

然後上訴法院就推論出，如果把將來的發明當成預期利益移轉，那麼當發明做出時，相關權利就是受讓人的了：

Once the invention is made and an application for patent is filed, however, legal title to the rights accruing thereunder would be in the assignee (subject to the rights of a subsequent purchaser under § 261), and the assignor-inventor would have nothing remaining to assign.

Id. at 1572.

這讓 "hereby" 這個字從此變成了能達成 "未來自動移轉" 的法律效果的神奇魔法用語。有興趣者可以上網Google "Patent Future Assignment"，應該可以找到相關的討論文章。

最後，請注意聯邦最高法院曾經暗示過這個 "未來自動移轉" 理論不一定正確。在2011年的Stanfard v. Roche, 131 S. Ct. 2188 (2011) 案中，大法官Sotomayor、Breyer跟Ginsburg分別以協同意見書跟不同意見書直接點名聯邦巡迴上訴法院的FilmTec案見解有問題，只是Roche沒有挑戰它，大法官無法處理而已 (Roche用另一個理由主張Stanford當事人不適格)。但Sotomayor大法官講得很明：FilmTec案我們以後有機會再處理：

I agree with the Court's resolution of this case and with its reasoning. I write separately to note that I share Justice BREYER's concerns as to the principles adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in FilmTec Corp. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 939 F.2d 1568 (1991), and the application of those principles to agreements that implicate the Bayh-Dole Act. See post, at 2202-2205 (dissenting opinion). Because Stanford failed to challenge the decision below on these grounds, I agree that the appropriate disposition is to affirm. Like the dissent, however, I understand the majority opinion to permit consideration of these arguments in a future case.

Stanford at 2199.

所以審約法務在聘僱合約中用 "hereby assign"，援引未來自動移轉來保護公司的同時，不要忘記它隨時有可能被翻盤的風險，要注意有沒有人就此上訴到聯邦最高法院喔。