[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the key issue is whether the invention belongs to a service invention. According to Article 6 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (adopted in 1984 and amended in 2020), inventions created in the course of performing the duties of the unit or primarily using the unit's material and technical conditions are considered service inventions. The right to apply for a patent for a service invention belongs to the unit. After the application is approved, the unit becomes the patentee. For non-service inventions, the right to apply for a patent belongs to the inventor or designer. After the application is approved, the inventor or designer becomes the patentee. The article also stipulates that if the invention is created using the unit's material and technical conditions, and the unit and the inventor or designer have signed a contract stipulating the rights to apply for a patent and the ownership of the patent, the provisions of the contract shall prevail. In addition, according to Article 15, the unit shall give awards to the inventors or designers of service inventions. After the invention patent is implemented, the unit shall give reasonable compensation to the inventors or designers based on the scope of its application and the economic benefits obtained. Therefore, the determination of ownership should focus on two points: first, whether it belongs to "performing the duties of the unit", including inventions made in the course of one's regular work, fulfilling the tasks assigned by the unit, and inventions made within one year after retirement or transfer that are related to one's regular work or the tasks assigned by the original unit; second, whether it "primarily uses the unit's material and technical conditions". 北京地区主要看该发明是否属于职务发明。根据《中华人民共和国专利法》（1984年通过，2020年修正）第六条，在执行本单位的任务或者主要利用本单位的物质技术条件完成的发明创造为职务发明创造；职务发明创造申请专利的权利属于该单位，申请被批准后，该单位为专利权人；非职务发明创造，申请专利的权利属于发明人或者设计人，申请被批准后，该发明人或者设计人为专利权人。该条同时规定，在利用本单位的物质技术条件完成的发明创造，单位与发明人或者设计人订有合同，对申请专利的权利和专利权的归属作出约定的，从其约定。另外，根据第十五条，单位应当对职务发明创造的发明人或者设计人给予奖励；发明创造专利实施后，根据其实施推广的范围和取得的经济效益，给予发明人或者设计人合理报酬。因此，判断归属应当围绕两点：一是是否属于“执行本单位任务”，包括本职工作中作出的发明、履行本单位交付的任务、退休调离后一年内作出的与本职工作或原单位分配任务有关的发明；二是是否“主要利用本单位物质技术条件”。

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

The ownership of invention made during employment is one of the most common disputes between technology companies and R&D personnel. Typical scenarios include: R&D personnel completing core technical solutions during their employment, and then applying for patents individually after leaving the company; the company claiming that the patent rights belong to it after the employee's departure; the employee claiming that the invention was completed using their own time and equipment, and therefore is not a work-related invention; the company and the employee signing an agreement on the ownership of the results, but the content of the agreement is unclear; the employee applying for a patent within one year after leaving the company, and the company claiming that it still belongs to a work-related invention. Due to the high economic value of technological achievements, the outcome of ownership determination has a significant impact on the interests of both parties.

II. Key points of dispute

First, whether it belongs to "performing the tasks of the unit", including the scope of one's duties, the tasks assigned by the unit, and special circumstances within one year after leaving the job. Second, whether it "mainly utilizes the material and technical conditions of the unit", which requires distinguishing between substantial utilization and general use. Third, the validity of the contract, where the unit and the inventor can make an agreement on ownership. Fourth, the inventor's claims for rewards and compensation, including the reward standards and the calculation of compensation after implementation. Fifth, the fixation of evidence, including R&D records, experimental data, funding sources, and equipment usage situations.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The key to resolving disputes over invention made in the course of employment lies in proving the "task relevance" and "resource dependency". In practice, we usually examine this from three perspectives: first, we look at the source of the R&D tasks to determine whether they fall within the employee's scope of duties or are tasks assigned by the employer; second, we examine the resource input to determine whether the employer's funds, equipment, and undisclosed technical materials were substantially used; third, we examine the time node to determine whether the invention occurred within one year after the employee's departure and is related to their previous work. The combination of these three factors often determines the outcome of ownership. In addition, the inventor's right to request rewards and compensation is independent of the ownership of the patent rights. Even if the patent rights belong to the employer, the inventor still has the right to claim rewards and reasonable compensation according to law, which is often overlooked in practice. For matters involving intellectual property protection, please refer to the relevant provisions.Intellectual property protection and corporate law; For matters involving enterprise technical cooperation and contract arrangements, they can be combined togetherBusiness and contract disputes in enterprisesAndSpecialised legal services.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

According to Article 6 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2020) on the ownership of service inventions, Article 15 on the incentives and remuneration for inventors, and Article 16 on the right of inventors to be named as authors, Article 12 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2010) on the definition of "performing the tasks of the unit", Article 13 on incentives and remuneration, Article 847 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (implemented on January 1, 2021) on service technical achievements, and the provisions on the distribution of the income from the transformation of scientific and technological achievements in the Law of the People's Republic of China on Promoting the Translation of Scientific and Technological Achievements (adopted in 1996 and amended in 2015), it is recommended to follow four steps: First, sort out the R&D process of the invention and clarify the source of the tasks and the input of resources; Second, check the content of the labor contract, confidentiality agreement, and agreements on the ownership of the achievements; Third, if there is a dispute over ownership, resolve it through consultation, administrative handling, or litigation in a timely manner, and pay attention to collecting R&D records and experimental data; Fourth, if the inventors claim incentives and remuneration according to the regulations, pay attention to the agreed standards and calculation methods. For intellectual property disputes, reference can be made to the relevant provisions.Intellectual property protection and corporate lawFor disputes involving technical contracts, the parties may resolve them through negotiation or mediation, or refer the matter to a court for litigation if necessary.Business and contract disputes in enterprises.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

The ownership dispute hinges on the evidence of the R&D process. Three reminders: First, enterprises should clarify the ownership of the results and the reward mechanism when initiating the R&D project, and keep the project initiation and acceptance documents; Second, R&D personnel should clearly distinguish between service inventions and personal inventions, to avoid affecting the ownership judgment due to the use of the unit's resources; Third, inventors should not ignore the right to request rewards and compensation. Even if the patent right belongs to the unit, there is still a legal basis for claiming rewards and compensation.Beijing Henglu Law FirmIt is recommended that both parties first fix the R&D records, financial vouchers, and equipment usage records when a dispute arises, and then evaluate the feasibility of ownership claims.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Who owns the patent rights to inventions made by employees during their employment?

For inventions made in the course of one's duties, the right to apply for a patent and the patent rights belong to the employer; for non-duty inventions, they belong to the inventor personally. The criterion for determining this is whether the invention was made in the course of performing the employer's tasks or by primarily utilizing the employer's material and technical conditions; if the parties have agreed otherwise, the agreement shall prevail.

Q2: What evidence do I need to prepare in case of a dispute?

The labor contract, the confidentiality agreement, the agreement on the ownership of the results, the documents for R&D project initiation and task assignment, the R&D records and experimental data, the vouchers for the use of funds and equipment, the patent application documents, and the proof of resignation time, etc.

Q3: How much does it cost to litigate such cases?

The litigation fees shall be paid according to the standard amount of the disputed subject matter; for cases involving technical appraisal, the fees shall be charged according to the standard of the appraisal institution. For cases entrusted to lawyers, the fees shall be calculated based on the proportion of the subject matter or charged on a stage-by-stage basis, subject to the provisions of the written entrustment contract.

Q4: How long does it take from filing a lawsuit to obtaining the court's ruling?

Cases subject to simplified procedures are generally concluded within three months, and cases subject to ordinary procedures are generally concluded within six months; for cases involving technical appraisals, declarations of patent invalidity, and other procedures, the time period will be significantly extended.

Q5: What should I do first?

First, sort out the sources of R&D tasks and the input of resources, and check the labor contracts and the agreements on the ownership of the results. Then, fix the R&D records, the vouchers for the use of funds and equipment, evaluate the feasibility of the ownership claims, and negotiate with the other party.

The above Q&A is mainly based on the judicial practice in Beijing. There may be differences in the adjudication opinions in different regions. It is recommended to consult a professional lawyer based on the specific circumstances of the case.

VII. Relevant public cases (for reference only, not handled by our firm)

The following cases are all sourced from the official websites of courts at all levels, judicial authorities, and authoritative media outlets, and are not related to the cases handled by our firm. They are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules and do not constitute opinions on specific cases.

[Case No.](2019) No. 6342 of the Civil Appeals of the Supreme People's Court
[Trial Court]The Supreme People's Court (Cases Published in the Bulletin of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China: Patent Right Ownership Dispute Case Between Shenzhen Weibang Technology Co., Ltd. and Li Jianyi, and Shenzhen Long-distance Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd.)
[Judicial Summary]Employee Li Jianyi served as the Director of Production and Manufacturing. During his tenure, he was able to directly access, control, and obtain technical information closely related to the R&D of the venous medication automatic preparation equipment involved in the case. His job responsibilities were closely related to the patented technology in question. Less than three months after leaving his position, he independently applied for the patent in question under his own name and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the R&D process or the source of the technology. The Supreme People's Court determined that the patent in question constituted a "related invention or creation" as defined in Article 12 Paragraph 1 Item 3 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law, i.e., a work-related invention or creation. When making this determination, factors such as the employee's job responsibilities, the specific circumstances of the patent in question, whether the former employer conducted related R&D, and whether the rights holder could provide a reasonable explanation for the source of the technology should be considered comprehensively, so as to maintain a balance of interests among the former employer, the departing employee, and the new employer.
[Source]Bulletin of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China (Related Cases of the 28th Batch of Guiding Cases) (2019-12)

[Case Number]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court (final instance)
[Judicial Summary]During his tenure, Qiao *jia, the general manager of the company, registered affiliated companies with highly overlapping business operations with the company in which he worked, using the company's resources to develop a series of patents and registering his son as the inventor. Subsequently, he transferred these patents to his affiliated companies free of charge. The Supreme People's Court held that it is unlawful for senior managers to violate their fiduciary duties and non-competition obligations to obtain patent rights related to the company's business for themselves or others. During his tenure and within one year after leaving the company, if he applied for patents highly related to the company's business using himself or his related parties as inventors and his own or affiliated companies as applicants, these patents could be deemed as inventions created during employment. The court determined that 11 patents (applications) including the patents involved in the case belonged to inventions created during employment, and the patent rights should belong to the company where he worked.
[Source]The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court (Identification of Duty-Invented Creations by Senior Managers of Companies) (2025)

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.