Newsletter
Correcting an Incorrectly Registered Patent Inventor: Whom Should the Plaintiff Request the Court to Order to Correct the Inventor Registration?
In disputes over patent ownership, if a plaintiff believes that they have made a substantial contribution to the patented technology, they may file a lawsuit claiming inventorship or rightful status as the patent applicant and owner, and request a change in the registration of the inventor, patent applicant, and patentee. However, even if the plaintiff can prove a substantial contribution to the patented technology, they may still lose the case. A notable example is the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court's judgment 113(2024)-Min-Chuan-Su No. 27, rendered on November 18, 2025.
In this case, Plaintiff A claimed to have developed the disputed technology in 2020 and entrusted Defendant Company B with handling the patent application. However, Company B applied for the patent in its own name and listed its legal representative, Defendant C, as the inventor. The patent was subsequently approved and published by the Intellectual Property Office. Plaintiff A asserted that he made the entire substantial contribution to the disputed patent technology and was therefore the rightful inventor, applicant, and patentee. Plaintiff A filed a lawsuit with the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court requesting: (1) confirmation that the patent application rights for the disputed patent belong to Plaintiff A; (2) that Defendant Company B change the registration of the patentee to Plaintiff A; and (3) that Defendant C change the registration of the inventor to Plaintiff A.
After reviewing the email correspondence between Plaintiff A and the patent firm, the court confirmed that the design drawings, parameters, and actual data related to the technical features of the disputed patent were all provided by Plaintiff A, who discussed these materials with the patent firm and reviewed and amended the patent application documents. The evidence submitted by Company B failed to demonstrate any substantial contribution. Therefore, the court recognized Plaintiff A as the inventor of the disputed patent. However, the court ultimately dismissed all of Plaintiff A's claims for the following reasons:
1. Plaintiff A and Defendant Company B had an employment relationship; Plaintiff A is neither the patent applicant nor the patentee of the disputed patent.
Under Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of the Patent Act, inventions made by an employee in the course of performing his or her duties belong to the employer with respect to patent application rights and patent rights. The employer is required to pay the employee appropriate remuneration unless otherwise agreed upon in a contract. The term "invention made in the course of performing his or her duties" refers to inventions completed by the employee within the scope of their employment.
Based on various pieces of evidence—including Plaintiff A's business card indicating employment at Company B, quotation and estimate forms issued by Company B listing Plaintiff A as the contact person and bearing the company's official seals, and payroll records submitted by Company B—the court found that Plaintiff A was an employee of Company B at the time the patent application was filed and during the relevant period.
Although Company B did not enroll Plaintiff A in labor and health insurance or provide evidence of salary payments, the court accepted Company B's statements. The court reasoned that if Plaintiff A were truly the patent applicant, it would have been unreasonable for him not to pay any application fees and not to promptly object upon learning that Company B was listed as the applicant and patentee. Therefore, the court concluded that Plaintiff A was neither the patent applicant nor the patentee of the disputed patent, and that his related claims lacked merit.
2. Plaintiff A cannot request Defendant C to change the inventor registration of the disputed patent
Although the court recognized Plaintiff A as the inventor of the disputed patent, the inventor is the person listed by the patent applicant at the time of application. The Intellectual Property Office records the inventor's name based on the patent applicant's submission. Defendant C was listed as the inventor by Company B during the application; however, Defendant C was neither the patent applicant nor the patentee and therefore had no right to unilaterally change the inventor registration. Accordingly, Plaintiff A's request that Defendant C change the inventor registration was also without merit.
This judgment indicates that, in patent ownership disputes, it is first necessary to clarify whether the provisions of the Patent Act regarding rights attribution apply between the parties. Furthermore, in disputes over erroneous inventor listings, it must be determined from whom the correction of registration should be requested in order for the court to consider the claim properly filed.