Concept and Legal Classification of BetriebserfindungLehmann-Richter/Wobst WEG-R
The term ‘BetriebserfindungLehmann-Richter/Wobst WEG-R’ refers to a specific form of employee inventions taking into account the legal framework, in particular as set forth by Lehmann-Richter and Wobst and the regulations in WEG-R (Reform of the Condominium Act, abbreviated as WEG-R in some commentaries). This terminology is used in legal scholarship to differentiate and analyze the legal relationships of inventions arising in the context of an employment relationship or in relation to joint property (e.g., condominium owners’ associations).
The main issue is who owns the rights to such inventions and which regulations apply to their use and exploitation within a company or owners’ association. The following sections provide a comprehensive overview of the individual legal aspects.
General Principles of Employee Inventions
Definition of Employee Invention
An employee invention is understood as an invention made by a person in the course of their work for a business, which has a direct connection to the assigned activities or duties of that person. The classic area of application concerns employed inventors whose employment relationship is governed by the Act on Employee Inventions (ArbNErfG).
Legal Framework
The ArbNErfG regulates who holds the rights to an employee invention (employer or employee), how such an invention is to be registered, and what compensation entitlements exist. It distinguishes between so-called ‘service inventions’ (arising in the course of employment and related to assigned duties) and free inventions.
BetriebserfindungLehmann-Richter/Wobst WEG-R in the Context of Condominium Ownership
Specific Features in Condominium Law
In connection with condominium owner associations (WEG), specific questions arise if, for example, a co-owner, during the use of common property, makes a technical invention relating to the use, management, or maintenance of the common property. ‘BetriebserfindungLehmann-Richter/Wobst WEG-R’ thus refers to the legal consequences of inventions arising within the organizational context of an owner’s association.
Co-Entitlement and Co-Use Rights
In the literature, Lehmann-Richter and Wobst hold the view that, in certain scenarios, the owners’ association, represented by the community of condominium owners, can acquire co-entitlement rights to such an invention. If an invention is made in the course of managing the common property or is directly related to it, it must be examined whether rights and obligations for the community arise.
The System According to Lehmann-Richter/Wobst and Its Effects
Attribution of the Invention
According to the approach of Lehmann-Richter/Wobst, the attribution of the invention may take place in the following ways:
- Exclusive attribution to the natural person: The invention belongs exclusively to its creator, even if this occurs in the context of the WEG.
- Co-Entitlement of the Association: Under certain circumstances, the association acquires a right of co-use or co-entitlement, in particular if the invention has a direct connection to the common property or its administration.
- Aspects of Remuneration: The use of the invention by the association may give rise to a claim by the inventor for remuneration from the association.
Legal Basis for Claims
German patent law generally assigns rights to inventions based on the creator principle (creator = owner). The ArbNErfG makes an exception for employee inventions. In the context of the WEG, there is no statutory provision comparable to the ArbNErfG. Therefore, the special features can only derive from the WEG itself (§§ 14, 15 WEG), as well as from contractual agreements or trust arrangements.
In particular, owners’ associations may, under certain circumstances according to Lehmann-Richter/Wobst, be entitled to use the invention. Nevertheless, the individual inventor usually remains the holder of the patent or utility model.
Use and Exploitation
Through implicit or explicit agreement, or assignment under property law, the association is given the right to use the invention for the management or enhancement of the common property. If such use takes place, the inventor is generally entitled to appropriate remuneration, the scope and conditions of which may be determined by general rules of unjust enrichment or by special agreements.
Practical Examples and Case Law
Example: Technical Improvement to Common Property
A condominium owner develops, in the course of managing the common property, a mechanism for an improved locking system that benefits all condominium owners. If this invention is implemented, the question arises whether the association acquires rights of co-use or must share in the value derived from exploitation.
Judicial Clarification
There is currently no supreme court decision on the term ‘BetriebserfindungLehmann-Richter/Wobst WEG-R.’ The legal classification is therefore mainly based on scholarly opinion and the transfer of general principles of patent law as well as existing provisions in condominium law.
Summary and Significance in Legal Practice
The ‘BetriebserfindungLehmann-Richter/Wobst WEG-R’ describes a particular form of employee invention in the context of condominium owner associations, taking into account the writings of Lehmann-Richter and Wobst. Central aspects are the attribution, use, and remuneration of such inventions between the individual inventor and the association. The issue gains significance when technical innovations arise and are to be used jointly within the association.
A final legal clarification is still outstanding, which is why it is recommended that agreements and arrangements be recorded in writing in advance, in order to ensure transparency regarding rights and obligations. When applying the general principles of inventor law to the WEG, all parties should ideally reach consensus in the condominium owners’ meeting or by explicit agreement.
Literature Reference:
Lehmann-Richter, Wobst (eds.), Commentary on the Condominium Act, especially on the reform and its consequences (WEG-R), with in-depth discussion of employee inventions and their legal attribution in a communal context.
Frequently Asked Questions
What claims does a condominium owner have under Lehmann-Richter/Wobst when an employee invention is made in the common property?
In the commentary by Lehmann-Richter/Wobst on the German Condominium Act (WEG), the question arises as to which claims a condominium owner may have if an employee invention is made on the common property (e.g., a plant room) by a co-owner or third party. As a rule, income from the use of common property is to be regarded as a surrogate within the meaning of § 16 para. 1 WEG. If, for instance, a commercially valuable patent is developed in connection with common property, all co-owners are entitled to share in the commercial success in accordance with their co-ownership shares. This can include both license fees and proceeds from sales. Claims may be asserted for payment and for disclosure of income and the extent of exploitation. However, there is generally no claim to participate in the patent or utility model application. If the inventor is sued for information and release of earnings, the internal relationship of the community is determined by the general provisions, especially those of association law.
Can the community of condominium owners decide on the use or exploitation of a joint employee invention?
According to Lehmann-Richter/Wobst, the community of condominium owners is fundamentally empowered to decide, by resolution, on the use and exploitation of an employee invention relating to common property. This derives from the management authority of the association pursuant to § 18 WEG. For example, the meeting may determine that an invention is to be marketed or licensed, and which administrators are responsible. However, resolutions that unreasonably restrict or affect the property of individual members may be challengeable or, in individual cases, void. When passing resolutions, the association must always respect the principle of proper management and weigh the interests of all owners.
How is the share of proceeds from the employee invention among the condominium owners calculated?
Lehmann-Richter/Wobst clarifies that, unless otherwise regulated by specific agreement or the partition declaration, revenue from the employee invention is to be distributed based on the ratio of the co-ownership shares. Proceeds—such as from licenses, sales, or direct use—are uniformly considered common income and are subject to the cost and liability allocation method. Variations from this may be made by resolutions in accordance with § 16 para. 2 WEG, as long as the limits of proper management are observed.
What co-determination rights do owners of individual units have in connection with an employee invention?
In terms of co-determination rights, owners of individual units, according to Lehmann-Richter/Wobst, are primarily referred to the decision-making process in the owners’ meeting with regard to the common property. Individual co-determination rights in the development, registration, or marketing of an employee invention generally do not exist, so long as it concerns original common property. In specific cases, other arrangements may be stipulated in the community agreement or by explicit majority decisions. If the invention is related to a separate property, a co-use right or a duty of participation by the association may be considered.
What liability risks exist for the association or individual owners for infringement of third-party IP rights through employee inventions?
On this point, Lehmann-Richter/Wobst explains that the association must ensure, when using, sharing, or exploiting an employee invention, that no third-party rights (e.g., patents, registered designs, or trademarks) are infringed. In cases of culpable or negligent infringement, injunctive relief and damages may be asserted against the condominium association and, in individual cases, against individual acting owners, especially advisory board members or the administrator. Therefore, it is advisable to conduct a comprehensive legal review prior to commercial exploitation and to inform all members of potential risks.
Can condominium owners demand the waiver of an employee invention?
Waiving an employee invention in the common property is a far-reaching act that cannot be enforced by individual owners. According to Lehmann-Richter/Wobst, a formal resolution by the association is required, which may need to be unanimous, especially if assets are involved. An individual owner may only demand waiver if he or she would otherwise suffer serious, unacceptable disadvantages, which must be proven in each case. Otherwise, the majority principle applies, but minority rights must be observed and the right to proper management must always be ensured.
How are disputes between condominium owners regarding distribution of income from the employee invention resolved?
Disputes about the remittance or distribution of proceeds from an employee invention are generally resolved through a resolution action before the competent local court (condominium matter). Lehmann-Richter/Wobst recommends compliance with out-of-court dispute resolution, such as mediation or intervention by the administrator, before legal proceedings are initiated. The interpretation of the community agreement, the partition declaration, and any special regulations is always decisive. In cases of uncertainty, the court will ultimately decide, taking into account the principles of condominium law and proper management.
