Understanding the Core Concepts: Patent, Know-How, and Invention

 

Understanding the Core Concepts: Patent, Know-How, and Invention

When we speak about intellectual property in business and law, three terms often arise: patent, know-how, and invention. At first sight they might look similar, but legally, strategically, and practically, they have very different meanings. These distinctions matter because they determine ownership, protection, and the economic value of an idea or a product.

Patent: A Legal Monopoly on Innovation

A patent is not simply an idea. It is a legal right granted by a governmental authority that gives its owner an exclusive monopoly to exploit a particular invention for a limited period, usually 20 years. The patent system is based on a trade-off: the inventor discloses the details of the invention to the public, and in exchange, the state grants exclusivity.

The essential features of a patent include:

1. Novelty – The invention must be new, not disclosed anywhere in the world before the filing date.

2. Inventive Step – It must not be obvious to a skilled professional in the field.

3. Industrial Application – It must be capable of being manufactured or applied in some useful way.

Patents are powerful tools in business. They can protect a pharmaceutical formula, a new type of engine, or even a software process in certain jurisdictions. However, patents are expensive to obtain and maintain, and they require disclosure. Once a patent expires, anyone can copy the invention.

Know-How: The Hidden Advantage

Know-how is different. It is not about filing documents in a patent office, but about practical, confidential knowledge that gives a competitive advantage. For example, the exact recipe for Coca-Cola or the precise way a company sets up its production line are forms of know-how.

Unlike patents, know-how is not limited to 20 years; it can potentially last forever, as long as secrecy is maintained. This is why many companies prefer to keep their knowledge as trade secrets rather than patent them. Patents reveal; know-how hides.

But know-how has its risks: if it leaks, if employees leave, or if a competitor independently discovers the same process, the protection vanishes. Unlike patents, the law does not automatically grant exclusivity unless specific confidentiality agreements and trade secret protections are in place.

Invention: The Starting Point of Innovation

Before something becomes either a patent or a piece of know-how, it begins as an invention. An invention is the creative spark—a new idea, method, or product that did not exist before. It can be brilliant and disruptive, but in itself, an invention has no legal protection. It is raw.

For instance, an engineer who sketches a new type of drone mechanism has created an invention. At this stage, it is not yet a patent (unless filed) and it is not necessarily know-how (unless turned into confidential processes or trade secrets). The invention is the seed, while patents and know-how are two possible ways of protecting and exploiting it.

Why the Distinction Matters in Business

Understanding the difference between patents, know-how, and inventions is crucial because each one interacts differently with the market, competition, and employment law. For companies, choosing whether to patent, to keep know-how secret, or simply to let an invention remain unprotected can determine whether the business wins or loses in the long run.

For example:

• A startup developing a medical device may patent it to attract investors, since patents provide a tangible, enforceable right.

• A family-run food business may keep its recipes as know-how, preferring secrecy over disclosure.

• An individual inventor might create something remarkable but fail to protect it, allowing others to commercialize it freely.

The law does not treat all three equally. A patent is a formal legal right, know-how is a practical competitive tool, and invention is a creative act without inherent legal force.

 Inventions in the Workplace: Who Owns What?

The moment an invention is created during employment, a delicate legal and ethical question arises: does the invention belong to the individual employee who created it, or to the employer who provided the resources, salary, and environment where the invention was born?

This issue is not just academic. It has led to numerous legal disputes across the world and continues to shape the relationship between creativity and corporate control.

The General Principle: Employer Ownership

In most legal systems, the starting principle is this: if an employee invents something in the course of their employment duties, using the resources of the employer, the rights generally belong to the employer.

This principle is grounded in the idea of fairness:

• The employer pays the employee to perform work, often specifically related to research, design, or development.

• The employer provides the laboratories, materials, funding, and networks that make the invention possible.

• The employer bears the commercial risks of turning the invention into a marketable product.

Therefore, the law often grants employers ownership or at least priority in such inventions.

Employee’s Right to Compensation

However, many legal systems recognize that employees are not just tools of the company; they are the creative force behind the invention. For this reason, even when ownership passes to the employer, employees may have a right to fair compensation or royalties if their invention provides exceptional value.

For example:

• In Germany, employee-inventors are entitled to claim reasonable remuneration when their inventions are taken over by the employer.

• In the UK, under the Patents Act, an employee may be entitled to compensation if their invention proves to be of outstanding benefit to the employer.

• In the US, ownership often depends heavily on employment contracts and assignment clauses. Most companies require employees to sign agreements transferring all rights to inventions developed during employment.

Inventions Created Outside Duties

The situation becomes more complex when an employee invents something outside the scope of their job duties.

• If a software engineer employed by a bank invents a new type of financial algorithm directly connected to their daily work, it will likely belong to the bank.

• But if the same engineer develops a video game engine at home, unrelated to banking, using their own resources, the invention may belong to the individual.

Still, conflicts arise when employees use company knowledge, tools, or confidential information in their private projects. Employers may argue that such creations are still “work-related.”

Case Study: The Dilemma of the Tech Employee

Imagine a researcher working in a pharmaceutical company. During office hours, using company laboratories, they design a new molecule that could become a groundbreaking medicine. Under most laws, the company owns the rights, since the researcher was hired to do exactly this type of work.

But imagine another scenario: the same researcher, working at home, in the evenings, invents a new water-purification device, unrelated to their job. The employer might still attempt to claim ownership, especially if the employment contract contains a broad “assignment clause” stating that all inventions made during the period of employment belong to the company. Whether such a clause is enforceable will depend on national law.

The Role of Contracts

Employment contracts often decide these disputes before they arise. Modern contracts usually include:

• Assignment of Inventions Clauses – requiring employees to transfer all rights to inventions related to the company’s business.

• Confidentiality Clauses – ensuring that employees cannot use company secrets or know-how in private projects.

• Non-Compete Clauses – preventing employees from developing inventions that compete with the employer’s products.

The fairness of these clauses is debated. Some argue they protect corporate investment; others say they suffocate individual creativity.

The Balance Between Innovation and Control

The law seeks to strike a balance: rewarding employees for their genius while ensuring that employers, who invest millions in R&D, can rely on ownership of inventions produced in their laboratories. Yet, in practice, disputes remain frequent.

Some companies even encourage employee-inventors by creating internal reward systems: bonuses, recognition, and sometimes a share of profits. Others take a harder line, claiming full ownership and discouraging independent side projects.

Famous Conflicts & Real-World Lessons

The question of “Who owns an invention?” has not only filled courtrooms but has also changed the history of companies, universities, and even entire industries.

Here are some striking examples that show how delicate — and explosive — the issue of workplace inventions can be.

1. The University Researcher vs The Institution

Universities are hubs of innovation. But who owns the inventions made by researchers: the individual academic or the institution that provides the labs and funding?

In many countries, including the US (after the Bayh–Dole Act 1980), inventions developed with federal funding are owned by the university, not the individual scientist. The university then decides whether to patent and commercialize them.

This system has sparked countless disputes: researchers often feel that their creativity is being expropriated, while universities argue that without institutional funding, the inventions would never exist.

Lesson: even groundbreaking science may become trapped in legal battles over ownership.

2. Kodak and the Digital Camera

In the 1970s, a young engineer at Eastman Kodak invented the world’s first digital camera. The company — then a giant in film photography — technically owned the invention, since it was created during employment.

But instead of embracing it, Kodak buried the project, fearing it would destroy its profitable film business. Decades later, digital cameras became the industry standard, and Kodak collapsed into bankruptcy.

Lesson: Employer ownership doesn’t always mean employer vision. Sometimes, inventions die not because they lack brilliance, but because the company lacks courage.

3. Employees Who Left to Compete – The Silicon Valley Dilemma

In Silicon Valley, many famous tech companies were born when employees left their jobs to start their own firms using knowledge gained at work.

• Former employees of Fairchild Semiconductor left to found Intel, which revolutionized the microchip industry.

• At the same time, lawsuits for “trade secret theft” and “breach of invention clauses” became common, as companies tried to block employees from becoming competitors.

California law, however, is very favorable to employees: non-compete clauses are largely unenforceable, giving freedom for innovation to flourish.

Lesson: Sometimes the legal system itself decides whether creativity is suppressed or unleashed.

4. Pharmaceutical Battles: The Case of the Miracle Drug

In the pharma industry, the stakes are enormous. A single invention can be worth billions.

There have been multiple cases where scientists claimed personal credit for new drugs, while pharmaceutical companies insisted the patents belonged to them. Courts usually sided with the employers, since the drugs were developed with company funding. However, some scientists have successfully claimed royalties, arguing their contributions went far beyond their normal job duties.

Lesson: In high-stakes industries, ownership of inventions can decide not only personal fortunes but also access to life-saving medicines.

5. The Rise of Side Projects – Modern Startups

In today’s startup culture, many successful companies were born from “side projects” created by employees at home.
But here lies the trap: if an employment contract has broad clauses, even an app coded at midnight in a bedroom could legally belong to the employer.

Some famous startups, like Facebook and Twitter, grew out of personal projects. Lawsuits often followed, with former employers or universities claiming rights to the ideas.

Lesson: In the digital era, the boundary between “work” and “private life” inventions is blurrier than ever.

Practical Implications & Lessons for the Modern Economy

The tension between patents, know-how, and inventions is not an abstract legal issue. It directly affects entrepreneurs, employees, investors, and entire markets. To close this exploration, let’s focus on the practical side: how to prevent conflicts, protect creativity, and encourage innovation.

1. For Employers: Draft Clear Contracts

Companies must invest in well-structured employment agreements. Vague or overly broad clauses lead to disputes.

• A good contract should specify what counts as a “work-related invention.”

• It should distinguish between projects done with company resources and those created independently.

• Transparency builds trust: if employees know the rules, they’re less likely to feel betrayed later.

Why it matters: Without clarity, even a minor side project could spark million-dollar litigation.

2. For Employees: Know Your Rights Before You Create

Many employees start side businesses or personal projects without realizing their employer might claim ownership.

• Check your contract: Does it include an “invention assignment clause”?

• Understand local laws: in some regions (like California), employee freedom is protected; in others, employers have stronger rights.

• Keep personal projects separate: use your own equipment, your own time, and your own funding.

Why it matters: What feels like your passion project today might legally belong to your boss tomorrow.

3. The Role of Know-How in Innovation

Unlike patents, know-how is not formally registered. It exists in the minds of people, in unwritten processes, in organizational habits.

• Companies should protect know-how through confidentiality agreements and internal culture.

• Employees should remember: while skills and experience are yours to keep, trade secrets are not.

• When leaving a job, carrying confidential formulas or secret client lists could lead to lawsuits, even criminal charges.

Why it matters: Knowledge is portable. The line between “personal expertise” and “protected secret” is where most disputes arise.

4. The Innovation Paradox: Control vs Freedom

Excessive employer control may discourage creativity. If employees feel they will never benefit from their ideas, they may stop innovating—or leave to start their own company.
On the other hand, if employers have no control, they risk financing innovations that ultimately enrich competitors.

The balance is delicate:

• Too much control = lost motivation.

• Too much freedom = lost investment.

Why it matters: The health of an economy depends on how this balance is managed.

5. How Courts Typically Decide

When disputes reach the courts, judges usually ask:

• Was the invention created within the scope of employment duties?

• Were company resources (labs, data, funding, equipment) used?

• Did the employment contract assign inventions to the employer?

If the answer to these is “yes,” the employer typically wins. However, employees sometimes succeed if they can show the invention was outside their normal duties and created independently.

Why it matters: Judges look at both the contract and the reality of work. Legal outcomes are not automatic—they depend on facts.

6. The Global Dimension

Different countries treat workplace inventions differently:

• United States: invention assignment clauses are common; state laws like California’s limit employer power.

• Europe: many countries (e.g., Germany) have specific statutes on employee inventions, often requiring employers to pay compensation.

• Asia: in places like Japan and China, strict rules give employers control, but recent reforms try to encourage employee rewards.

Why it matters: In a globalized economy, startups, researchers, and corporations must navigate multiple systems of law.

7. Creativity Needs Protection, but Also Trust

At the end of the day, the ownership of inventions is not only about legal rights, but about trust and fairness.

• Employers should recognize and reward creative employees.

• Employees should respect the resources and risks employers provide.

• Laws should encourage innovation without suffocating personal initiative.

If handled wisely, inventions can become a shared victory: enriching companies, empowering individuals, and advancing society as a whole.

---

The difference between patents, know-how, and inventions is more than a technical detail. It shapes careers, determines the rise or fall of companies, and influences the direction of entire industries. Whether you are an entrepreneur, a researcher, or an employee with a dream, understanding this framework is not optional. It is the foundation for turning ideas into lasting value.