Intangiblia™
Plain talk about Intellectual Property. Podcast of Intangible Law™
Intangiblia™
Patent Paydays: When Employee Ingenuity Strikes Gold
Genius doesn't come with a price tag until someone tries to take it from you. When brilliant minds create groundbreaking innovations during employment, who truly owns these inventions? This fascinating legal arena pits creators against corporations in battles that can span decades and result in multi-million-dollar verdicts.
Meet John Peterson, the engineer who refused to surrender his weekend projects to a convenience store chain that claimed everything he created, even off the clock. His story of fighting Bukies' overreaching employment contract offers a masterclass in standing up for your intellectual property rights. Then there's Professor Shanks, whose glucose biosensor technology earned his employer £24 million. In comparison, he received nothing until a twenty-year legal battle culminated in a £2 million award and a landmark UK Supreme Court decision on "outstanding benefit."
From patent grammar wars where a single verb tense determined ownership of HIV diagnostic technology to post-employment clauses that tried to claim an inventor's future ideas, we explore the fine print that can make or break inventor fortunes. We'll take you around the globe from Germany's sophisticated formulas for inventor compensation to China's statutory minimum payouts, revealing how different legal systems value creative minds. Whether you're sketching brilliance on napkins or developing prototypes in corporate labs, understanding your rights as an inventor has never been more crucial. As workplace innovation drives the modern economy, the law is finally catching up to ensure the minds behind the magic receive their fair share.
Some inventions are sparked over coffee, others in corporate cubicles, but when they turn into million dollar ideas, someone's going to want more than just a thank you. Today, we're celebrating the minds behind the magic, from solo engineers with spicy side projects to professors cashing in years later. We're dishing out real legal drama with a side of justice, because when you invent brilliance, you deserve more than just your name on the filing. You deserve your slice of the pie.
Speaker 2:You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law playing talk about intellectual property. Please welcome your host, leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3:Welcome to Intangiblia. I'm your host, leticia Caminero. This is the podcast where ideas meet contracts and where we ask important questions like if you invented the wheel at work, can you at least keep the patent for the axle? Today we're diving into a world of real-life inventor drama A beaver-branded gas station chain trying to claim off-duty inventions, a glucose sensor that took 20 years to pay out, and a case where a single verb tense handed patent rights to the wrong party. We'll explore grammar battles, post-employment power plays and countries where just filing a patent might earn you a payday. We'll meet a professor who fought for credit, a techie whose side project became corporate gold, and an engineer who took on Samsung and won, because, when it comes to workplace innovation, knowing the law might be the most valuable asset.
Speaker 1:Artemisia coded, clever and definitely not signing away my IP rights without a fight. Disclaimer. This episode was created using AI tools, including Artemisia. Disclaimer.
Speaker 3:This episode was created using AI tools, including Artemisia, fully energized, enthusiastically coded and always receiving the credit that brilliant assistants deserve. We start with a spicy one. John Peterson, an engineer and former Bukies employee, is doing the wildly successful text and convenience start chain for a jaw-dropping $20 million. Zero cents. And no, it's not about stolen snacks, it's about stolen smarts. Pettersson claims he was coerced into signing an IP assignment agreement that effectively gave Buki's ownership over all of his inventions, including those created entirely off the clock in his own home using his own tools.
Speaker 1:One of the inventions, a set of HR automation tools and food production equipment Things that had nothing to do with selling brisket sandwiches and giant sodas. When Bucky's allegedly found out about his side projects, they demanded he destroy them. When Bucky's allegedly found out about his side projects, they demanded he destroy them. He refused, they fired him and now he's suing.
Speaker 3:The legal issue at the heart of this case Whether an employer can claim rights to inventions made outside of work, outside the job description and with no company resources. In many jurisdictions the answer is no, but it depends heavily on the language in the employment contract, and that's where things get slippery.
Speaker 1:This case also underscores the danger of broad, overreaching IP clauses. A lot of employment contracts have language like you assign to us any invention you make while employed. But what happens when that includes your weekend passion?
Speaker 3:project. The storytelling in this one writes itself a David versus Vive Goliath a clever inventor trying to protect his creations from a corporate giant with deep pockets and aggressive lawyers and aggressive lawyers. Whatever the outcome, this case could set new limits on how far employment contracts can go when it comes to invention ownership. Inshanks wasn't just tinkering with science. He was building something groundbreaking. Back in the 80s, while working at a Unilever subsidiary, he developed a new biosensor technology. It turned out to be a game changer in glucose testing, especially for diabetics. The company eventually licensed it out, breaking in over 24 million pounds sterling, zero pence and Shanks. He got a small pat on the back and a fight that will last nearly two decades.
Speaker 1:Let's set the scene. Shanks had signed a standard employee agreement. The company owned the invention, which isn't unusual. But the UK Patents Act says that if an invention provides an outstanding benefit to the employer, the inventor deserves a fair share. So Shanks took Unilever to court.
Speaker 3:Unilever argued that 24 million pounds sterling zero pence was pocket change for a company their size. The court wasn't buying it In 2019, the Supreme Court said. Essentially it's not about the company's size, it's about the invention's value and context. They awarded Chang's £2 million sterling zero pence a rare but important win for employee inventors.
Speaker 1:This decision didn't just close a chapter. It opened a door. Now inventors across the UK have a stronger legal basis to demand compensation when their creations make serious money, even if they're just one brilliant cog in a corporate machine.
Speaker 3:It's the classic underdog story a single inventor facing down a global giant and proving that fairness can be measured in both percentages and persistence. Now let's talk about what happens when an invention predates your job but ends up powering your employer's success. In Aprio and VisaCari, the story gets murky. Zacari had created a software tool before joining Aprio, but once it was on board, he used that tool as part of a larger company project.
Speaker 1:As Aprio then filed a copyright registration, naming itself as the sole author, zakari objected, saying the core was his creation. He hadn't assigned it. And yet the company argued it was part of his job.
Speaker 3:This case pushes on the boundaries of IP ownership when pre-existing inventions meet new employment. Did he forfeit his rights by integrating it into company work, or does prior authorship always carry weight? The court decided Zakari was the rightful owner.
Speaker 1:Legally. It reminds us that just because you use your own tools on the job doesn't mean you've given them away. Courts now increasingly look at intent, timing and explicit assignments.
Speaker 3:It's a cautionary tale for inventors If you bring your own IP into a job, be crystal clear about boundaries. And for employers don't assume that everything an employee touches is yours by default. Texas juries don't play In one of the most talked about tech verdicts of 2025,. Headwater Research, founded by none other than John Pedersen, won a stunning $278,800,000 in damages against Samsung. The allegation that Samsung had incorporated patented touchscreen and haptic feedback technology into its smartphones and tablets. The kicker Pedersen had conceived these inventions after leaving his job.
Speaker 1:But Samsung pointed to a post-employment assignment clause Pedersen signed while at his former company. They argued that anything he invented within a certain time window after leaving still belonged to them. Sounds like a legal leash right, but Pettersson proved that the inventions were conceived independently and crucially, after his employment ended. After his employment ended.
Speaker 3:This case lands squarely on one of the most contentious IP clauses out there Assignment catch holes that try to rope in ideas employees haven't even had. Yet the jury saw through it. They ruled for Pettersson, essentially saying your brain doesn't belong to your boss Once you've left the building.
Speaker 1:It's a landmark, not just because of the money, but because of the message. Post-employment IP clauses have limits. You can't claim a future invention like it's leftover office stationery.
Speaker 3:And, let's be honest, it's also just a great story. The same inventor who took on bookies now topples Samsung From brisket to billion dollar devices. Pedersen's legal trail is one for the IP history books. Let's head into the thrilling world of grammar, because, yes, even phrasing can cost millions In this case. A professor at the University of Michigan invented health monitoring technology while employed there. Apple later licensed the technology from the university, but there was one major problem the university didn't actually own the patent rights.
Speaker 1:Why? Because the university's IP policy said that researchers agreed to assign inventions to the institution. That future tense phrasing meant the rights weren't automatically transferred. The court ruled that this was not a present tense assignment. The inventor, not the university, held the rights and Apple had licensed from the wrong party.
Speaker 3:So the inventor sued, claiming rightful ownership, and the court sided with them. What looked like a boring line of policy language became the deciding factor in a high stakes patent dispute.
Speaker 1:This is part of a growing body of case law that highlights just how crucial contract wording is. Do hereby assign equals? Transfer Will assign Not yet, and that gap can mean the difference between institutional ownership and individual control.
Speaker 3:A legal takeaway. Universities and companies need to stop copy pasting IP clauses and start calling their lawyers and inventors. If your contract isn't specific, you just might have the last word. Let's rewind to a pivotal case that became the grammar lesson every IP lawyer now memorizes In Stanford v Roche, disputes centered around who owned the rights to a breakthrough HIV diagnostic tests. A Stanford researcher, mark Holodny, had signed agreements with both the university and a private company, cetus, which was later acquired by Rush.
Speaker 1:Here's the twist. Stanford's agreement said Holodny will assign future inventions, but the Cetus agreement used the present tense do hereby assign. The courts ruled that the present tense do hereby assign. The courts ruled that the present tense agreement took priority. That single verb choice handed ownership of a major patent to Roche and left Stanford with nothing.
Speaker 3:This wasn't just a university blunder. It became a landmark Supreme Court case in 2011 and continues to be cited across employment IP disputes, especially in biotech.
Speaker 1:The takeaway Universities, startups, anyone hiring innovators don't get casual with your contract language, and for inventors it's a cautionary tale Know who you're signing with and when. If your agreements conflict, the one with the clearest and present tense language could dictate everything.
Speaker 3:Stanford B Roche isn't just about one test. Stanford v Roche isn't just about one test.
Speaker 2:It's about clarity, timing and why verbs can make or break multimillion-dollar patents.
Speaker 3:Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law. Playing talk about intellectual property, let's talk about one of the boldest pivots in recent patent law. Traditionally, once an inventor assigns a patent to an employer, that's it no backseats. But the 2021 US Supreme Court decision in Minerva Surgical Biologic shook that norm. The case involved a medical device patent and a challenge brought by its original inventor. The legal doctoring on the table, a signer stoppel.
Speaker 1:Signer stoppel is basically the idea that if you sell or sign your patent, you can't later say it's invalid. Like selling someone a car and then telling the motor vehicle authority it was never roadworthy. But here's the twist the court said that if what you're challenging came after the assignment, like new claims added later, then game on, and in this case that mattered.
Speaker 3:The inventor said the company had expanded a patent scope to cover something he didn't actually invent. The Supreme Court agreed. You can't stop someone from challenging something they didn't technically assign in the first place.
Speaker 1:This decision is huge for employee inventors. It gives them back some leverage. Just because you sign something over doesn't mean you surrender forever, especially if your old IP gets twisted into something new.
Speaker 3:In other words your past self doesn't get to silence your future self, and in the high stakes world of patent litigation, that's a powerful shift. Sometimes you don't need a full victory, just a good start. That's the message Poland Supreme Court sent in a 2020 case that turned heads across Europe. The court ruled that, when it comes to employee inventions, remuneration isn't just about whether a patent gets granted. It's about effort and intent.
Speaker 1:The case involved an inventor who developed and disclosed a patentable invention during his employment. The employer filed a patent application, but the patent hadn't yet been granted. When the employee requested compensation, the company said let's wait and see. But the court said nope, filing triggers rights.
Speaker 3:This is significant because in many jurisdictions compensation is only owed if a patent is granted and commercialized. But Poland said the very act of filing shows the invention has value. So the inventor deserves recognition and payment from that point forward.
Speaker 1:It's a progressive take that puts the focus back on the contribution itself, not just the company's bottom line, and for researchers working inside large institutions, where many filings never go commercial, it's a welcome precedent.
Speaker 3:In the storytelling arc of inventor justice. This is that feel-good moment. It says thanks for your brain work, we see you. Here's a case that played out in China, but with echoes in workplaces everywhere. Zhang, a diligent engineer at 3M China, developed a successful new product that ended up generating major revenue. He expected a reward, specifically bonus compensation under the company's incentive policy. But when he came knocking, 3m said sorry, our internal policy doesn't require us to pay you.
Speaker 1:So Zhang sued, and the Shanghai High People's Court didn't just agree with him. They made a statement. The court ruled that statutory inventor rights under China's patent law override internal company rules. It didn't matter that 3M's internal HR policy tried to cap or redirect compensation. The law says inventors must be rewarded for service inventions. Jang's story also reflects a deeper legal principle that's gaining traction globally If the law grants you a right, your employer can't just memo it away.
Speaker 3:It's a classic case of David versus the memo machine, and a win that will resonate with employees in every lab, factory and R&D office across the country. In South Korea, not every invention made on the job is guaranteed a payout. This case involved a medical engineer who developed an innovation while employed by a mid-sized health tech company. He filed for compensation under Korea's Invention Promotion Act, expecting to be rewarded for his contribution, but the court said not so fast.
Speaker 1:The judge ruled that because the invention didn't generate exclusive commercial benefit for the company, meaning it wasn't a dominant factor in the company's revenue, the engineer wasn't entitled to additional remuneration. Even though the invention was technically valuable, it didn't meet the financial impact threshold.
Speaker 3:That's a high bar. In collaborative industries like medical devices, it's rare for one innovation to carry the load alone. This standard puts inventors in a tough spot. If their contribution is folded into a larger ecosystem, how do they prove their value?
Speaker 1:It's the dark side of value-based recognition. Companies love it until you try to quantify what your creativity is really worth to quantify what your creativity is really worth.
Speaker 3:This case shows that legal recognition of inventors still varies wildly by country, and sometimes even a brilliant idea can get lost in the complexity of product integration and profit attributions. Okay, let's zoom in on the part that usually comes with fine print and finance departments remuneration formulas. Around the world, different countries have very different approaches to how inventors should be compensated for their work, and while they don't all use the same math, most agree on one thing Inventors should get a piece of the pie.
Speaker 1:Let's start with Germany. Their Employee Inventions Act is basically a calculator disguised as law. It uses a three-part formula. You multiply the exploitation value by both the inventor's share and the personal share. The result a precise, structured payout that considers profit, team size and how much initiative the inventor brought to the table.
Speaker 3:Meanwhile, China keeps it clear and minimum-based. The law mandates that inventors receive at least 2% of profits, or 0.2% of the company's operating income derived from the patented invention. It's simple math, but in high-volume sectors it adds up fast.
Speaker 1:Japan takes a more flexible route. The law requires reasonable remuneration, often calculated through negotiation or policy. It gives companies room, but also demands fairness. And, yes, japanese courts have stepped in when employers got too stingy.
Speaker 3:Inventors only get compensated if their invention brings an outstanding benefit to the employer, like Shanks did with Unilever. It's a high bar, but when you clear it the payout can be massive.
Speaker 1:And there's Poland where innovation effort is enough. You don't need to wait for a granted patent or commercial success. Just filing the patent can trigger your right to remuneration. It's refreshing and empowering, especially for inventors in academia and the public sector.
Speaker 3:Different formula, same goal To make sure the minds behind the magic aren't left empty handed. Whether it's statutory percentages or judicial discretion, the wall is waking up to the value of rewarding innovation fairly.
Speaker 1:So here's to every inventor out there sketching brilliance on napkins or prototyping in broom closets, wherever you live, there's a formula and a fight to make sure your genius gets its due.
Speaker 3:From beaver branded lawsuits to grammar induced ownership flips, this episode proved one thing when it comes to workplace inventions, the fine print isn't just legal fluff, it's your future.
Speaker 1:First invention. Timelines matter, whether your idea was born before, during or even after your job. What you sign and when can define your rights, protect your past work, clarify your present duties and don't give away your future too easily.
Speaker 3:Second, clarity in contracts is key. A single word or tense can change who owns what. Employment agreements aren't just paperwork. They are roadmap for your rights.
Speaker 1:Third inventor pay systems vary around the world, but the message is shared. If your work creates value, you should see some of it. Whether that's through formulas, statutory rights or court intervention, recognition is rising.
Speaker 3:And finally, national laws can offer protection even when company policies fall short. Legal frameworks are evolving to honor creativity and contribution, even when the employer's memo says otherwise.
Speaker 1:So, whether you're building something brilliant in a lab, an office or a garage, know your rights, read the fine print and celebrate your creativity.
Speaker 3:Thanks for tuning in to Intangiblia. New episodes every Tuesday in English and Spanish. Visit intangibliacom and don't forget to patent your brilliance.
Speaker 1:Before someone else does.
Speaker 2:Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law plain talk about intellectual property. Did you like what we talked today? Please share with your network. Do you want to learn more about intellectual property? Subscribe now on your favorite podcast player. Follow us on Instagram, facebook, linkedin and Twitter. Visit our website wwwintangibliacom. Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020. All rights reserved. This podcast is provided for information purposes only.