Duty entrustment patent

Khan, is there a problem with this question?

1. Patent Law: Article 6 An invention-creation made by performing the tasks of the entity or mainly utilizing the material and technical conditions of the entity is a service invention-creation. The right to apply for a patent for a service invention-creation belongs to the unit; After the application is approved, the entity shall be the patentee.

It can be seen from the above article 6 that the right to apply will obviously not be "owned by Professor C, Ding Mou and another teacher."

The question is whether it belongs to University B or Company A. ..

Contract Law: Article 339 Ownership of Technological Achievements Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the right to apply for a patent for an invention-creation commissioned for development belongs to the research developer. If the research developer obtains a patent, the client can exploit the patent for free.

Where the research developer transfers the right to apply for a patent, under the same conditions, the client shall have the priority to be assigned.

According to the above problems, it is clear that the patent application right belongs to B University.

2. Article 13 of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law: The inventor or designer mentioned in the Patent Law refers to a person who has made creative contributions to the substantive features of invention-creation. In the process of completing the invention-creation, a person who is only responsible for organizing the work, providing convenience for the utilization of material and technical conditions or engaging in other auxiliary work does not belong to the inventor or designer.

It can be seen from the above regulations that there is no doubt that Professor C and Ding are inventors. The problem is that another professor put forward suggestions for improvement (the previous review and acceptance was ignored). Personally, the so-called improvement suggestions can be understood as putting forward a research direction, but no substantive research has been carried out. Therefore, this other professor does not belong to the inventor.