Abstract
Intellectual property right is one of the fundamental rights. In particular, protection of intellectual property rights of those who are in a relatively weak position may necessitate specific regulations. In this respect, intellectual property rights of employee as the weak party of employment relationship are protected with the relevant provisions of the Industrial Property Code numbered 6769. In that Code, employee inventions are grouped into two categories: “service inventions” and “free inventions”. Employee’s right to remuneration, which probably constitutes the most significant right of the employee, is regulated in the Regulation that has recenly been entered into force. In this article, the concepts of service invention and free invention are analysed as well as employee’s right to remuneration within the frame of current regulations.
I. INTRODUCTION
The more technology improved, the more the competittive environment became challenging and it increased the importance of the protection of inventions. Considering that the creation of an invention within such a complicated technological system needs usually advanced technical background and operating environment, it has been observed that most of inventions are made in the companies which have strong substructure, or which are even established only for the purpose to make inventions. These circumstances oblige legislators to identify what kind of rights or obligations should be granted to employees and employers on employee inventions.
Various legal solutions have been developled for this problem in Turkish law. First legislation took place in the article 336 of the previous Code of Obligations numbered 818 and it was followed by detailed provisions of Legislative Decree on Protection of Patent Rights dated 24.06.19951. Thereafter, Industrial Property Code (“IPC”), which is numbered 6769 and entered into force on 10 January 2017, has contained employee invetnions specific regulations between the articles 113 and 122. It should be pointed out that the most detailed regulations regarding the employee’s inventions have taken place in the “Regulation on Employee Inventions, Inventions Made Within the Higher Education Institutions and Inventions Made Within the Projects Supported by the Public Authorities” (“the Regulation”) dated 29 September 2017. Owing to the fact that the Regulation has been issued very late, the number of relevant court decisions and academic studies are very limited. On the other hand, it worths to discuss the subject, which has importance both for intellectual property law and labour law, in accordance with the recent regulations.
In this article, following the division to “service invention” and “free invention” which was preferred by the IPC, rights and obligations of employee and employer in terms of each invention type are shortly addressed. Subsequently, explanations regarding remuneration tariffs, which have taken part in the Regulation, in terms of the right of employee for compensation are provided. As it is explained in detail below, although it is difficult to identify if there is a service invention or a free invention in each case, it is crucial to determine the type of the invention in order to specify the rights and obligations of both employee and employer.
II. Types of Employee Inventions
A. Service Invention
1. The Definition
Service invention is defined in the article 113 of IPC as “the invention made by the employee during the period of employment which either result from obligatory activity of the employee in the company or public institution or substantially based on experience or activities of the company or public institution.” It is necessary to focus on the basic terms and elements articulayed in the definition in order to perfectly comprehend it. First of all, term of employee within the framework of patent law has a broader meaning than the term used in the Employment Code numbered 48572. Furthermore, the first requirement to identify an invention a service invention is that the invention has to be made during the term of employment. In this context, the elements of “to be resulted from the employee’s tasks” and “to be essentially based upon the experience or activities of the enterprise” must also be clarified An invention that is resulted from the employee’s tasks in a private enterprise or a public authority constitutes service invention. For instance, an invention made by an employee working in the research and development department of a company is considered service invention3. Because, such an invention emerges as a consequence of the performance obligation of the employee4.
Another element mentioned in the definition of service invention is being based on experiences of the enterprise. It should be underlined that an invention based upon the experience or activities of the enterprise cannot be directly consider a service invention.As it is clearly seen in the definition, it should “essentially based on experiences or activities of the enterprise”. The utilization must consequently be substantial5. In other words, only if experiences and activities of enterprise has an important role in the creation of the invention that invention can be identified as a service invention. On the other hand, if the knowledge, creativity and experiences of the employee is much more dominant than experiences and activities of enterprise, the invention should be considered free invention6, Otherwise, it would be inequitable to ignore the employee’s creativity and intensive labor only because he/she partly benefited from the facilities provided by the employer.
2. Rights and Obligations of an Employee on a Service Invention
Some rights and obligations arise upon the creation of a service invention by an employee.7 The employee has to fulfill some obligations in order to obtain the rights arising from the service invention.
Any employee making a service invention is obliged to report the invention to the employer immediately in a special written notice. The employer has to inform the employee without any delay in writing that he/she was notified (IPC art. 114/1). Technical problem, its solution and how he/she arrived at the service invention, if necessary, with visual data, should be explained in the employee’s notification (IPC art. 114/2). The employer may make limited or unlimited claim to the invention within four months from the receipt of a proper report sent by the Employee. In case that the employer make unlimited claim to the invention, the employer obtains all rights on the service invention when the employee gets the relevant notification. On the other hand, if the employer make limited claim to the invention, the invention becomes free invention. Provisions regarding the free inventions are explained below.
Upon the employer’s unlimited claim, the employer shal be under a duty to file the first patent application in order to protect that invention (IPC art. 116/1). If the employer does not comply with this duty, the employee has the right to request the filing of a patent application8. If the employer does not apply for patent in the additional period fixed by the employee, the service invention becomes a free invention (IPC art. 116/4)
B. Free Invention
1. The Definition
Free invention is defined as inventions other than service inventions in the article 113 of IPC and the article 4 of the Regulation. Similarly, free invention is defined in academic studies as including employees’ all inventions which are not included in the scope of service invention9. Although free invention is made by the employee during the period of employment like service invention10, it is considered as free invention because of the fact that this invention is not made substantially based on experience or activities of the company. This type of free invention is called as free born invention11. In addition, it is possible that some service inventions are transformed into free invention in certain circumstances. In cases that the employer does not comply with notification periods or does state that he/she will not claim ownership of the employee’s invention within the notification period, service invention is transformed into free invention. Similarly in case that the employer claims partial ownership of the employee’s invention, the said invention becomes free invention. Likewise if the employer claiming full ownership of the employee’s invention does not apply for patent for the invention or does not apply within the period specified by the employee, the service invention is transformed into free invention. This type of free invention is called as released free invention.
It is worth mentioning that it is not always easy to determine the border between service invention and free invention. The main distinction point is being substantially based on experience or activities of the companyor arising from the performance obligation12. However determination of whether the invention made by the employee is based on experiences of the company or not may differ from each other in each case.
2. The Rights and Obligations of Employee on Free Invention
Free invention means an invention made by the employee independently from performance obligation and facilities of the company13. In this sense the employee has all rights on free invention, including production based on the invention, licencing, full or partial assignment of the invention14. However it is not possible to say that employee does not have any obligations to employer in case of free invention although free invention is in principle made independently from the service relationship and/or facilities of the company. In this sense, rights and obligations of employee arising from free invention are shortly explained below. Is should be noted that the most important right of the employee on his/her invention is right to demand remuneration which will be addressed below within a separate heading.
a. Obligation of Notification
As in the case of service invention, employee who make a free invention is obliged to notify the employer. Pursuant to the first paragraph of article 119 of IPC, during the period of employment, the employee is obliged to notify the employer of sufficient details about the free invention and about how it was developed. The employer may object in writing within three months of receiving the employee’s written declaration. However two exceptions are regulated in the Code regarding the obligation of notification. There is however no obligation to notify employers about free inventions if the invention clearly cannot be utilized in the employer’s company’s field of business activities. Similarly the employee is not obliged to notify of the invention which is transformed into free invention (released free invention).
b. Employee’s Obligation to Offer
As a consequence of loyalty obligation, before the employee can utilize a free invention elsewhere during the term of his employment, he must first of all at least offer his employer a right to use the invention if the invention comes within the scope of the employer’s current or planned business operations15. This issue is regulated in the article 119/4 of IPC. However even in this situation, the offer made by the employee is not providing the employer full ownership of the invention, rather it includes a non-exclusive utilization from the invention on reasonable conditions.
c. Right to Demand Either Full Assignment of the Invention or Release
Owing to various reasons, the employer may claim partial ownership of the employee’s invention rather than full ownership. Even though the employer has the right to claim partial ownership of the employee’s invention, the employee has the right to demand either full assignment of the invention to the employer or the employer to release the invention pursuant to the article 115/3 of IPC and the article 8/3 of the Regulation, in case that the employee’s utilization from his invention is dramatically difficult. If demand of the employee is not answered after the notification of the employee, employer’s partial ownership of the invention comes to the conclusion.
III. Employee’s Right to Remuneration on Service Inventions
Despite differences, most countries have regulations on service invention and the employee’s rights. In this sense, firstly the issue of remuneration demand right of the employee for service invention in comparative law will be discussed in this part. Afterwards Turkish practice regarding the same matter will be focused on to understand the issue more accurately.
A. Right to Remuneration in Comparative Law
Employee’s right to demand remuneration on the service invention is a controversial issue in comparative law. In particular increase in the number of court decisions rendering great amount of compensations for the employees based on the service invention causes the companies to hesitate supporting the inventions within the structure of the company. For example in a case file held by a French court, an employee who invented a medicine received approximately 830,000 USD for the invention. Another example is that Tokyo Supreme Court rendered 1.45 billion USD compensation in favour of the employee for the invention regarding the artificial sweetener which includes aspartame16. This type of exorbitant amount of compensation may constitute a problem for companies. On the other hand in some countries such as the United Kingdom, employees cannot receive compensation or receive very little compensation which does not exceed the employee’s one monthsalary. Pursuant to the article 39/1 of the United Kingdom Patent Code dated 1977, an employee is entitled to receive compensation for service invention only in case of “outstanding benefit” of the company. This regulation is criticized for being unjust for the employees. It should be admitted that there is currently not a regulation which provides a just system regarding the employee’s invention between the employee and the company/employer.
Regarding the remuneration of the employee for service invention within the framework of comparative law, German law is worth mentioning. There are two criteria in determination of remuneration right of the employee, which are invention value and share factor (because it is not a free invention, share of the employee is important in service invention)17. Employee’s position within the company is another factor affecting discounts from the amount. To illustrate, a discount which will be made for the invention of an employee working in the research department will be higher than that of working in a usual position18. It is because job description meaning thatthe employer for which purposes employ the employee and what opportunities provide for the employee, is important.
Courts in German may render compensation amount between the hundreds and thousands Euro. It is frequently seen in pharmaceutical industry that the compensation amount is higher than one billion euro19.
It should be noted that the source of Turkish law regarding the employee’s invention is German Law20. Basic provisions such as division between service invention and free invention or criteria of service invention being performance obligation and based substantially experiences and activities of the company are same with German practice21. According to the German law, the employer is obliged to pay “a reasonable” compensation to the employee if he decides to use the invention. Form of payment and its amount is determined by an agreement between the parties. If the parties do not agree, the employer shall determine a compensation and offer it to the employee. In case of disagreement between the parties, they should file the dispute to the arbitrator whose decision is not binding22. If the parties do not agree on the arbitrator’s decision, the dispute will be rendered by the Court.
Pursuant to the Guideline which was published by the Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour regarding the remuneration of the employee’s invention, a compensation determined in accordance with the value of the invention and share factor of the employee is given to the employee. We may say that the same criteria is applied for current Turkish practice.
On the other hand, there is a current debate in German regarding a new regulation on employee’s invention as the employers/companies are not satisfied with the present regulation. According to the expected regulation, the employer who admits employee’s invention as a service invention must pay 750 Euro in the first stage. Following this, the employer is not obliged to apply for patent of the invention yet. Second payment will be done by the employer as 2000 Euro after the employer has used the invention for 31/2 years. In exceptional situations that the employer gains outstanding benefit from the usage of the invention during 81/2 years, third payment will be done by the employer as a compensation in the amount 5,000 to 60,000 Euro, or higher than this in accordance with the features of the concrete case. Eventhough this regulation has not been yet entried into force, it is very important for the employers as it provides predictability. Especially this regulation will provide a predictable system for the companies by redressing the balance between the money and time spent for research and development works and paid amounts23.
B. Right to Remuneration in Turkish Law
As it is mentioned above, pursuant to the paragraph 11 of the article 115 of IPC, the Regulation which regulates the remuneration scale of employee’s invention and arbitration proceedings was entried into force on 29.09.2017. It should be stated that because right to demand remuneration is subject to both full ownership and partial ownership of the employee’s invention, the employee is paid for both full ownership and partial ownership of the invention. Although it is mentioned in the article 2 of the Regulation with a headline “Scope” the expression “determination of the remuneration which will be paid to the employees who own inventions”, pursuant to the articles of IPC numbered 6769 which are mentioned above, in case that the employer claims partial ownership of the employee’s invention, the invention is transformed into free invention. Therefore it is not accurate to see the remuneration scale exclusively related to service invention.
1. Right to Remuneration in Case of Unlimited Claim
The most significant right of the employee for service invention is the right to demand reasonable remuneration. There are regulations regarding the remuneration both in IPC and the Regulation. It is stated in the paragraph 6 of the article 115 of IPC that the employee deserves a reasonable remuneration for service invention. In the paragraph 7 of the same article, it is highlighted that invention value, position of the employee in the company and share factor of the company in the service invention criteria are considered while calculating the remuneration of the employee.
It is regulated in the article 7 of the Regulation that the employee is given “encouragement award” for his/her service invention in addition to the remuneration. Encouragement award is defined as “the amount which was given to the employee in consideration of the application for his/her invention in the case that the employer claims full ownership of the invention” in the article 4 of the Regulation. Encouragement award must not be lower than the net minimum wage. In other terms, although a minimum limit for encouragement award is determined, there is not a maximum limit for it. The encouragement award regulated in the Regulation is different from the remuneration given to the employee for service invention.
First of all it should be mentioned that the parties may make an agreement regarding the remuneration in case of service invention. It is clearly specified in the article 11 of the Regulation that the remuneration and method of payment can be determined with an agreement or similar legal relationship made between the employee and employer following the employer’s claim of full or partial ownership of the employee’s invention. However, if the parties cannot agree on the remuneration of service invention, the remuneration will be determined in accordance with the method prescribed in the article 10 of the Regulation within the framework of the principlesstated in the article 10 of the Regulation. According to this method, remuneration of service invention is determined by multiplying income gained from the invention to coefficient rates within the chart in article 21/3 of the Regulation with respect to the invention groups specified in the article 20 of the Regulation. Determination of remuneration in accordance with the said calculation method, the company’s income gained from the invention should be firstly determined24, and secondly group of the invention should be determined. For a fair payment to the employee, employees who make service invention are divided into certain groups. In this way, an accurate and fair distinction is provided between the employee who works in the research and development department and the employee whose position in the company is not related to the invention but he/she makes invention by undertaking a mission per se. Pursuant to the article 20 of the Regulation, service invention is divided into three groups in accordance with invention value, position of the employee in the company and share factor of the company in the service invention;
Group 1: Inventions which are not directly related to employment position of the employee within the company and which are made without any shares of the company.
Group 2: Inventions which are not directly related to employment position of the employee within the company but made for solution of the problems determined by the company or which are made with share of the company.
Group 3: Inventions which are directly related to the employment position within the company and which are made with the full share of the company.
Following the determination of the group of invention, remuneration of service invention is obtained by multiplying coefficient rates placed in the chart below with the income gained from the invention;
However in case that the determined remuneration is higher than 150.000 times of net minimum wage, the employer is not obliged pay the exceeding amount. It is worth mentioning that the employer’s obligation to pay the remuneration remains during the patent time25.
To illustrate how to calculate the remuneration in accordance with above-mentioned method, an example is provided in the Regulation. Let’s assume that an invention regarding a product which is sold by TRY 1000 within a company producing machines has a share of TRY 10 in the sold product and that 1 million products including this invention were sold. In calculation of the income gained from the invention, 1 million which is the sales volume of the products is multiplied with 10 TRY which is share of invention to the product (10 TRY x 1 million sales volume). The amount obtained from this calculation method is 10 million TRY, which is considered as the income gained from the invention.
In case that an employee who works in the research and development department within a company producing machines makes an invention within the framework of the employer’s instructions, remuneration of the employee is calculated as shown below for the year that net minimum wage is 1400 TRY and the income gained from the invention is 10 million TRY:
a) Firstly third group is determined as the service invention group for above mentioned example.
b) Secondly coefficient rates are determined for the income gained from the invention with net minimum wage as follows:
• Coefficient is 0,0020 for the part 1.400.000 TRY which is 1000 times of the net minimum wage.
• Coefficient is 0,0015 for the part 5.600.000 TRY which is 1000 to 5000 times of net minimum wage.
• Coefficient is 0,0012 for the part 3.000.000 TRY which is 5000 to 10000 times of net minimum wage.
The remuneration calculated by using these coefficients is as follows:
• 1.400.000 TRY times 0,0020: 2.800 TRY
• 5.600.000 TRY times 0,0015: 8.400 TRY
• 3.000.000 TRY times 0,0012: 3.600 TRY
IN TOTAL: 14.800 TRY.
This calculation method which has entried into force with the Regulation aims to provide balance between the parties in case of service invention. This regulation is particularly important for the companies/employersas it provides predictability of remuneration of service invention. However it will be seen in time how the practice regarding remuneration of service invention will develop as the Regulation has newly entried into force.
2. Right to Remuneration in Case of Limited Claim
It is stated in the article 8 of the Regulation in parallel with IPC numbered 6769 that the service invention is transformed into free invention in case that the employer claims partial ownership of the invention but the employee’s right to demand remuneration remains proportionally with the partial ownership. The employer obtains a non-exclusive right of utilization on the invention partial ownership claimed26. In another term, although service invention is transformed into free invention by the employer’s claim of partial ownership of the invention, right of the employer to utilize the invention in return for reasonable remuneration to be paid to the employee does not end. Because utilization right of the employer is based on the IPC numbered 6769, this right cannot be limited or inhibited by the employee27.
Pursuant to the article 11 of the Regulation, the remuneration and method of payment can be determined with an agreement or similar legal relationship made between the employee and employer following the employer’s claim of full or partial ownership of theemployee’s invention. Although the method which is mentioned above will be used for calculation of remuneration in case of full ownership of service invention, it is not stated how to calculate remuneration in case that the employer claims partial ownership of the invention. In other terms, it is ambiguous how the method of calculation in case of claim of full ownership will be implemented if the employer claims partial ownership. In academic studies, it is argued that the maximum limit of remuneration in case of partial ownership can be as much as the amount that is paid for non-exclusive licence28. Remuneration right of the employee in case of partial ownership of the employer is still unclear within the framework of the provisions of the Regulation.
IV. Conclusion
Together with the technological and scientific developments, each invention providing an inventive step is becoming more and more valuable. Most of inventions in such a sophisticated technology world are made within the framework of a company’s activities. This situation may cause that the real inventor of that invention cannot benefit from it while the company makes profit a lot. All developed countries try to solve this problem by the current regulations regarding the employee’s invention. As it is in previous regulations, IPC which was entried into force on 10.01.2017 contains provisions about employee’s invention. Pursuant to these provisions, there are two types of employee’s invention, which are service invention and free invention. The main problem of both invention type is how to determine the remuneration of the employee for the invention. Although there is not a serious controversy for free invention, remuneration right of the employee for service invention, which is a very controversial issue of modern law, is differently regulated in the countries’ legal systems. By the Regula tion which was entried into force on 29.09.2017, a new method of calculation regarding the employee’s inventions has come into Turkish legal practice. It should be noted that regulating the calculation method is accurate for commercial predictability from the point of companies. How the provisions of the Regulation are implemented will be seen over time. In this study, employee’s invention issue is shortly explained with a focus on the employee’s remuneration right. With development of Turkish legal practice regarding the issue, new studies will be taken place and the balance will be redressed, which does not infringe the employee’s right of remuneration in addition to providing a just system that does not cause the companies/employers hesitate to focus on research and development works.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Eda Çataklar, “Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu ile Çalışanların Tasarımları ve Buluşları Üzerindeki Hak Sahipliği Sisteminde Yapılan Değişiklikler”, Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu Sempozyumu, Ed. Feyzan Hayal Şehirali Çelik, Ankara 2017.
Servi Bayraktar, İşçi Buluşları, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Özel Hukuk Anabilim Dalı İş ve Sosyal Güvenlik Hukuku Bilim Dalı, Ankara, 2013.
Talat Canbolat, İşçi Buluşları, İstanbul 2007 .
İlhami Güneş, “Türk Patent Hukuku Uygulamasında İşçi (Hizmet) Buluşları, Serbest Buluş Kavramı ve Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk”, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, http://www.ankarabarosu.org.tr/siteler/ankarabarosu/frmmakale/2010-2/2.pdf (Last Access: 13.11.2017).
Turgut Öz, “Türk Patent Hukukunda Çalışanların Buluşları”, Prof. Dr. M. İlhan Ulusan’a Armağan, Vol. III, Ankara 2016.
Erdem Özdemir, Çalışan Buluşlarında Ne Değişti: Soru ve Cevaplarla Bedel Ödeme Zorunluluğu, 02.10.2017, https://tr.linkedin.com/pulse/çalışan-buluşlarında-nedeğişti-soru-ve-cevaplarla-bedel-özdemir (Access Date: 03.01.2018).
Jürgen Meier, Thure Schubert, Hans-Rainer Jaenichen, “Employee’s Invention Remuneration – Money (f)or Nothing?”, Vossius Avukatlık Ortaklığı, http://www.vossiusandpartner.com/pdf/pdf_58.pdf (Last Access: 20.12.2017).
Tahir Saraç, “Çalışanlar Tarafından Gerçekleştirilen Buluşlarda Patent Kime Verilecektir”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. IX, Isparta 2004, S. 2.
FOOTNOTE
1 Turgut Öz, “Türk Patent Hukukunda Çalışanların Buluşları”, Prof. Dr. M. İlhan Ulusan’a Armağan, Vol. III, Ankara 2016, p. 590.
2 Pursuant to the paragraph (d) of the article 2 of IPC employee means “a person or an official who is obliged to serve another person within a contractual or a similar legal relationship and carries out the task to which he is contractually obliged within the framework of the other party’s instructions and with personal dependence. In addition it is stated in the paragrapf 3 of the article 113 of the Code that “Provisions regarding the employees are applied for students, and interns who serve freely without time limitation.
3 İlhami Güneş, “Türk Patent Hukuku Uygulamasında İşçi (Hizmet) Buluşları, Serbest Buluş Kavramı ve Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk”, Ankara Barosu Dergisi, p. 15, http://www.ankarabarosu.org.tr/siteler/ankarabarosu/ frmmakale/2010-2/2.pdf (Last Access: 13.11.2017).
4 Servi Bayraktar, İşçi Buluşları, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara 2013, p. 75.
5 Bayraktar, p. 79.
6 Öz, p. 594.
7 The most significant right of the employee arising from service invention is right to compensation. This right is examined in detail below, under a separate heading.
8 Tahir Saraç, “Çalışanlar Tarafından Gerçekleştirilen Buluşlarda Patent Kime Verilecektir”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi C. IX, Isparta 2004, Vol. 2, p. 259.
9 Öz, p. 593.
10 Bayraktar, p. 83.
11 Talat Canbolat, İşçi Buluşları, Istanbul 2007, p. 241.
12 Canbolat, p. 241.
13 Saraç, p. 273.
14 Canbolat, p. 229.
15 Canbolat, p. 257.
16 Jürgen Meier/Thure Schubert/Hans-Rainer Jaenichen, “Employee’s Invention Remuneration – Money (f)or Nothing”, Vossius Avukatlık Ortaklığı, http://www.vossiusandpartner.com/pdf/pdf_58.pdf (Last Access: 20.12.2017).
17 Meier/Schubert/Jaenichen, p. 7.
18 Meier/Schubert/Jaenichen, p. 8.
19 Meier/Schubert/Jaenichen, p. 8.
20 Eda Çataklar, “Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu ile Çalışanların Tasarımları ve Buluşları Üzerindeki Hak Sahipliği Sisteminde Yapılan Değişiklikler”, Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu Sempozyumu, Ed. Feyzan Hayal Şehirali Çelik, Ankara 2017, p. 420.
21 Çataklar, p. 425.
22 Meier/Schubert/Jaenichen, p. 7.
23 Meier/Schubert/Jaenichen, p. 9.
24 Erdem Özdemir, Çalışan Buluşlarında Ne Değişti: Soru ve Cevaplarla Bedel Ödeme Zorunluluğu, 02.10.2017, https://tr.linkedin.com/pulse/çalışanbuluşlarında-ne-değişti-soru-ve-cevaplarla-bedelözdemir (Last Access: 03.01.2018).
25 It is stated in the paragraph 1 of the article 23 of the Regulation that: “The period which is the basis in calculating the remuneration ends in parallel with protection due of patent.”
26 Güneş, p. 15-16.
27 Saraç, p. 272.
28 Canbolat, p. 237.
