Photo = Samsung Electronics

 

[Alpha Biz= Reporter Kim Jisun] If a former employee of Samsung belatedly claims compensation for an employee invention, the payment should be assessed based on the regulations in effect at the time of their employment, according to a Supreme Court ruling.

On the 23rd, the legal community reported that the Supreme Court's Second Division overturned the lower court's ruling against plaintiff A in a lawsuit seeking compensation for an employee invention against Samsung Electronics and sent the case back to the Patent Court on the 30th of the previous month.

A joined Samsung Electronics as a researcher in 1989 and invented 10 technologies related to washing machine filters. In August 1997, A transferred the patent rights for these technologies to the company. Samsung Electronics filed for the patents and started selling washing machines equipped with the filters developed by A from 1999. A left Samsung Electronics in 1998.

When the employee invention was registered as a patent, A became eligible to apply for compensation for the employee invention from the company. About 17 years after resigning, in 2015, A applied to Samsung Electronics for the employee invention compensation. Samsung Electronics assessed the compensation at 58 million won and notified A. Dissatisfied with this, A filed a lawsuit.

The key issue in the trial was the statute of limitations for the claim for employee invention compensation. The statute of limitations for claims for employee invention compensation is 10 years, similar to general claims, but the point from which the 10 years is calculated was in question.

Samsung Electronics revised its internal regulations on employee invention compensation in 1995, setting the time for payment of compensation as "the time when the patent is recognized to have contributed to the company's management." According to this standard, the time when Samsung Electronics assessed the compensation in response to A’s claim could be seen as the starting point for calculating the statute of limitations.

The first trial ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff, but the second trial ruled that A’s claim had already expired, resulting in a ruling against the plaintiff. It was determined that A's employee invention in 1999 could not be evaluated based on the 1995 regulations. The calculation of the statute of limitations should start from January 1, 2001, when the new compensation guidelines took effect. The 2001 compensation guidelines did not specify a separate time for payment.

The Supreme Court's judgment was different. The Supreme Court overturned and remanded the lower court's ruling, stating that the 1995 regulations should be applied to A, as he had retired, and there were no special circumstances to warrant otherwise. It was determined that the statute of limitations for the compensation claim had not commenced under the 1995 regulations.

The Supreme Court stated, "Since there are no special circumstances such as an agreement between A and Samsung Electronics to apply the 2001 employee invention compensation guidelines, the 1995 employee invention compensation guidelines, not the 2001 guidelines, apply to A's claim for employee invention compensation."

 

 

[ⓒ AlphaBIZ. 무단전재-재배포 금지]