[Article / Designs] Overview of court decisions on employee-created designs (Tsuyoshi Fujimoto, Patent, January 2026)
更新日：10月15日
Article information
Article type: Publication review
Categories: Designs / Patents
Main topics: Employee inventions / Creators and inventors
First published on this website: October 1, 2026
Display and classification checked: October 1, 2026 (not a revalidation of the legal analysis)
[Article / Designs] Overview of court decisions on employee-created designs (Tsuyoshi Fujimoto, Patent, January 2026)
There have been five cases claiming remuneration solely on the basis of employee-created designs, but no published court decision has awarded it.
Compared with patents (employee inventions), the following differences and points warrant attention in calculating reasonable remuneration.
① Proportion of excess sales: For designs, choosing alternative designs (other designs without a common aesthetic impression) is easier than for patents, so exclusive market advantage tends to be assessed lower.
② Hypothetical royalty rate: This is often assessed at about half the patent royalty rate (approximately 1.5%–2.0%). This is understood as reflecting the substitutability of designs.
③ Employee contribution: As with patents, this is around 5%–10%, but because a creator's individuality is more readily expressed in designs, it may be assessed higher depending on the case.
However, cases to date recognizing a high contribution involved special circumstances, such as an exceptionally strong dependence on the plaintiff personally.
Original article: https://lnkd.in/g8EMHz-t
Related articles
Updates and corrections
Substantive corrections and additions are recorded separately from classification, related links and display changes.
October 1, 2026: First publication of the author's original LinkedIn text on this website. Article type, categories, topic tags, sources and consultation navigation added.
2026-10-01 | Display maintenance: added case references stated in the original or language-alternate metadata; not a revalidation of legal analysis.
2026-10-01 | Name notation: replaced verified Japanese-script personal names with Roman-letter forms in this English article and its navigation. Legal analysis and original publication date unchanged.
Consultation and inquiries
Images from the original AMEBLO article
English translations of the original image text
Original images retained for comparison
Original AMEBLO article
コメント