Problem of exercising an author’s right to remuneration for the use of work-related results of intellectual activity

the article examines current issues of legislation and law enforcement practice in the field of patent law regarding the payment of remuneration to authors of the results of intellectual activity. The main attention  is paid to the analysis of the existing norms governing the calculation of the amount of remuneration for the use by the employer of the created as-built objects. The work revealed a key problem that impedes the implementation of the principle of constitutional justice in determining the amount of remuneration: the influence of various related factors on the total amount of payments. The author offers a comprehensive approach to solving this problem, based on the analysis of causal relationships and the classical theory of labor value. The concept of determining the fair amount of remuneration taking into account the primary cost of an intellectual product has been developed. A new approach to the legislative regulation of this issue is proposed, taking into account the essence of remuneration as a special type of income. The scientific novelty of the study is the introduction of the concept of the primary cost of remuneration, the development of a model for the structural determination of the amount of payments, the creation of a function of the dependence of remuneration on inflation, the analysis of the influence of various factors on the total amount of payments. The practical significance of the work lies in the possibility of using the proposed changes in legislation to improve the system of legal regulation of relations between employers and authors of intellectual products. An analysis of the judicial practice of considering cases related to intellectual work in conditions of high workload on courts of general jurisdiction is also presented. 

1. Mokronosov, A. G., Kondratiev I. P., Asylguzhin, T. R. and

2. Likhacheva, S. S. (2021), Evaluation of the efficiency

3. of patent activities in the digital economy, Ural as a

4. driver of neo-industrial and innovative development of

5. Russia, Proc. of the 3rd Ural Economic Forum, October

6. –22, Ekaterinburg, Ural State University of Economics,

7. pp. 111–116.

8. Kastalskiy, V. N. (2008), “Author’s remuneration for

9. the use of work-related inventions”. Patenti I Licenzii.

10. Intelectualnii Prava, no. 3, pp. 44–52.

11. Ruzakova, O. A. (2022), “Issues of protection of the rights

12. of authors of official objects of patent rights”, Lex Russica,

13. vol.75, no. 5 (186), pp. 63–70. – DOI 10.17803/1729-

14. 2022.186.5.063-070.

15. Novoselova, L. (2014), “Right to remuneration for the

16. use of a work-related invention”, Economy and Law,

17. no. 7, pp. 57–65.

18. Salitskaya, E. A. and Storozhenko O. M., (2024), “Remuneration for work-related objects of patent rights:

19. controversial point of the current legislation”, Zhurnal

20. Suda po intellektual’nym pravam, no. 3 (45), pp. 73–85.

21. Zykov, S. A. (2021), Work-related objects of the patent

22. law: current legal opinions and an unresolved problem,

23. Intellectual Property. Industrial Property, no. 9, pp. 67–71.

24. Dyachenko, O. G. and Tuzova, S. Yu. (2023), “Author’s

25. remuneration for creation and use of work-related results

26. of intellectual activity: legislative regulation and analysis

27. of the practice of Russian and foreign universities”, Bulletin of the Federal Institute of Industrial Property, vol. 2,

28. no. 2, pp. 22–31.

29. Polyakov, S. B. (2020), Judicial practice of non-resistance to lawless actions. Current issues of judicial

30. activities, Proc. of the All-Russian Research-to-Practice

31. Conference, Penza, October 29, 2020. Ed. by Terekhin,

32. V. A., and Guk, P. A., Penza, Penza State University,

33. pp. 24–35.

34. Zamotaeva, E. K. (2014), “Legality of substatutory rule

35. making: issues and solutions”, Copyright, no. 4, pp. 37–54.

36. Dzhermakyan, V. Yu. (2016), “Payment of remuneration

37. for the use of an invention under a prematurely terminated patent”, Patenti I Licenzii. Intelectualnii Prava, no. 3, pp. 11–14.

38. Mikhailov, S. M. and Mikhailov, L. (2015), “Possession

39. of special knowledge as a guarantee of judicial independence of the Intellectual Property Court”, Actual

40. Problems of Russian Law, no. 5 (54), pp. 173–177.

41. Lebedintseva, L. A. (2012), “The concept and essence

42. of intellectual labor in up-to-date economic and sociological studies”, Society. Environment. Development,

43. no. 1 (22), pp. 108–111.

44. Zbyshko, B. G. and Stepus, A. F. (2022), “Searching

45. for new approaches to standardization of intellectual

46. labor”, Economics: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,

47. vol. 12, no. 2–1, pp. 240–258.

48. Skovpen, V. A., Agarycheva, A. V. and Starokozheva, V. P.

49. (2023), Assessment of labor complexity as a tool to

50. implement the principle of justice in terms of labor

51. remuneration, Russian Journal of Labour Economics,

52. vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 1599–1618.

53. Ryazanova, V. V. (2018). “Problems of exercising the right

54. to remuneration for a work made for hire”. Yuridicheskiy

55. Vestnik Samarskogo Universiteta [Samara University

56. Law Journal], no. 4 (3), pp. 1541–58.