Deserts of an in-house inventor

職務発明の対価

    In that ruling, the Tokyo District Court had ordered Nichia to pay Mr. Nakamura's claim for ¥20 billion as a fair reward for the invention under the Patent Law. In the court-mediated settlement announced Jan. 11, this amount was greatly reduced to about ¥843 million, comprising a reward plus compensation for the delay in payment. Nevertheless, the amount is the highest decided for an in-house invention in Japan.

    The settlement is significant in that it recognizes the rights of workers whose inventions lead to huge corporate profits. It will probably serve as a yardstick in deciding future rewards for in-house inventors.

    In consideration of the possibility that rewards in general could become exorbitant, the high court reduced the degree to which it recognized Mr. Nakamura's efforts as having contributed to Nichia's patent earnings from the invention — from 50 percent, in the lower-court ruling, to 5 percent. Nichia's being let off the hook for the full ¥20 billion is likely to stir debate.

    However, as a result of his court battle, Mr. Nakamura has opened the way for guaranteeing the rights of in-house inventors. It is a historical achievement along with the Nobel Prize-class invention of the blue LED, which has revolutionized lighting technology.

    Mr. Nakamura's lawsuit, which was first filed in 2001, has marked a departure from the conventional custom of workers remaining silent and submissive. In the last few years, several large corporations have increased invention bonuses by more than 100 times during the course of their acquiring patents and accruing the profits therefrom.

    Mr. Nakamura's invention transformed Nichia from a specialty maker of fluorescent devices into the top maker of blue LEDs. It achieved rapid growth with its monopoly and continues to enjoy huge profits. By commercializing the blue LED, the company was able to dominate the world market with a new form of lighting that consumes little electricity and is long-lasting.

    In the first ruling on the case, the Tokyo District Court took Mr. Nakamura's side, stating that "the invention was a totally rare example of a world-class invention achieved through the inventor's individual ability and unique ideas (despite) a poor research environment and a small company." Mr. Nakamura initially received a reward of ¥20,000 per patent. In terms of profit distribution, it was a travesty of justice. In fact, the Patent Law, since before World War II, has stipulated the right of an in-house researcher to receive a fair reward commensurate with the profits from an invention. Until Mr. Nakamura's case, though, there had been few lawsuits, and courts had approved rewards of a few million yen at most.

    As a result of a series of recent lawsuits, the Patent Law has been revised, and it has become acceptable for employees and companies to discuss and decide on fair rewards for inventions beforehand. For the company, deciding on rational rewards through consultation means avoiding the management risk of being hit later with a huge claim by an in-house inventor. The out-of-court settlement between Nichia and Mr. Nakamura is in accordance with the spirit of this revision.

    In practice, however, one wonders how many workers feel that they can discuss, on equal terms with their employer, the issue of being paid a just reward for inventions. So far the only people who have filed suits have been former employees, and a limited number at that. Individual employees find it difficult to face up to their companies in a manner that some managers might consider defiant. In the future, fair rewards for inventors should be formulated in guidelines.

    Placing importance on creative and free research, and paying proper rewards for inventions will help strengthen the foundations of industrial competitiveness.

The Japan Times Weekly
Jan. 22, 2005
(C) All rights reserved

      和解の条件は、日亜側が中村氏に約8億4300万円を支払うことだが、昨年1月に一審の東京地裁判決が命じた200億円からは大幅減額となった。それでも、職務発明の対価としては過去最高だ。

      これは巨額の企業利益に結びつく発明をした社員の権利を認めた画期的判断である。今後の職務発明に対する対価の基準になるだろうが、日亜が200億円の支払いを免れたことについては論議をかもす可能性がある。

      中村氏が01年に起こした訴訟は、社員が会社に滅私奉公する従来の企業文化からは考えられないことだったが、最近は、職務発明の報奨金を100倍以上に引き上げた大企業もある。

      中村氏の発明は日亜を蛍光体の専業メーカーから青色LEDのトップメーカーに変身させ、同社に巨額の利益をもたらした。

      一審の東京地裁は、青色LEDは開発者の独自の能力とアイデアでなされた世界的発明と判断したが、中村氏が当時、会社から受け取った報奨金は2万円だけだった。

      職務発明をめぐる一連の訴訟の結果、特許法は改正され、企業と社員が発明の対価について事前に話し合うことが可能になった。この制度の下で、企業は職務発明に対する巨額の対価を後になって要求される経営リスクを避けることができる。

      しかし、職務発明の対価について、経営側と平等な立場で話し合える社員は多くはあるまい。これまで、同様の訴訟を起こしたのは少数の元社員だけである。今後は、正当な対価について指針を作成する必要がある。

      創造的で自由な研究開発努力を重視し、職務発明に正当な対価を支払うことは、産業の競争力を強化するひとつの方法である。