CAJ | 학술논문

限制约定优先原则的规定一直是《职务发明条例》起草过程中的争议焦点。美国州法关于约定优先原则的限制规定寥寥无几，而判例法关于这一问题的理论依据却经历了由格式合同到预约合同的重大转变。相较而言，我国立法在该问题上多采用原则性规定，限制约定优先原则的范围宽于美国的相关规定与理论范畴。我国可以借鉴美国成文法和判例法的相关经验，以谨慎的态度对待限制约定优先原则这一问题，进一步完善《职务发明条例》等相关立法。
한제약정우선원칙적규정일직시《직무발명조례》기초과정중적쟁의초점。미국주법관우약정우선원칙적한제규정요요무궤，이판례법관우저일문제적이론의거각경력료유격식합동도예약합동적중대전변。상교이언，아국입법재해문제상다채용원칙성규정，한제약정우선원칙적범위관우미국적상관규정여이론범주。아국가이차감미국성문법화판례법적상관경험，이근신적태도대대한제약정우선원칙저일문제，진일보완선《직무발명조례》등상관입법。
The issue of limitation of the principle of agreement priority has caused fierce discussion since State Intellectual Property Office and Science and Technology Ministry drafted “Bill of Service Invention”. In the United States,there are few provisions in statute law on limitation of the principle of agreement priority,while a significant change which turned from adhesion contract to pre-contract has taken place in case law. In contrast, China’s current law on this issue is so general that our limitations of the principle of agreement priority on service invention are wider than those in the USA. We can learn from the experience of American statutes and case law. Therefore,legislators should take an careful attitude to limitation of the principle of agreement priority when making up the weaknesses of relevant laws.