Scandinavia: Update regarding employee inventions in Sweden

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

Scandinavia: Update regarding employee inventions in Sweden

A new collective agreement on employee inventions, negotiated between two major parties of the Swedish labour market, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv) and the Council for Negotiation and Cooperation (PTK – being a body of 25 trade unions), has recently entered into force in Sweden. The new agreement, commonly known as The Inventor Agreement, applies to employee inventions reported to the employer as of December 1 2015.

With the exception of a provision regarding an employee's right to fair compensation, Swedish legislation on employees' inventions is non-mandatory. In practice, The Inventor Agreement is the applicable legal framework for governing under what conditions the rights to patentable employee inventions are transferred to the employer. The agreement applies to those parties bound by the agreement, being a significant proportion of Swedish companies engaged in R&D.

Although the re-negotiated agreement to a large extent is identical to the former agreement, a few notable changes have been made.

Firstly, significantly higher compensation levels to employees are recommended and have been linked to an officially indexed amount established yearly. This year's recommended minimum amount is approximately €2,200. Furthermore, the ultimate time limit for initiating legal action to solve a dispute concerning compensation has been changed to being calculated 10 years from the patent application date, rather than 10 years from the reporting date of an invention to the employer. A new special arbitration tribunal to settle disputes regarding compensation has been established and a possibility to request a maximum of four years stay of proceedings has been introduced in order to facilitate the establishment of a disputed invention's value. A final novelty worth mentioning is that unlike other arbitration tribunals, summaries of the arbitration awards will be made publicly available, thus providing some kind of case law from these cases.

Eilenberg

Marcus Eilenberg


ZaccoArne Jacobsens Alle 15DK-2300 Copenhagen S DenmarkTel: +45 39 48 80 00Fax: +45 39 48 80 80contact@zacco.comwww.zacco.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Yonatan Drori, attorney at Drori-Stav IP in Israel, explains why foreign counsel must treat Israel’s patent disclosure requirements as an ongoing obligation, rather than a one-off formality
From Japan to Southeast Asia, domestic and regional firms picked up some of the biggest prizes, while key foreign players maintained momentum
Earlier this month, Managing IP had exclusively reported that the French arm of Taylor Wessing was minded to pull out of the deal
Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
Gift this article