“钻孔压浆成桩法”发明专利权归属之争(见本刊1992年第四期),从1988年12月北京地铁地基公司向北京市专利管理机关提出调处请求.到今年5月北京市高级人民法院作出终审判决,历时三年多。该发明创造经历了非职务——职务——共有——非职务,几经周折.在科技界引起强烈反响。有些人提出题问,北京市高级人民法院为什么会将“钻孔压浆成桩法”这样一个有重大价值的发明专利判定为陶义个人的非职务发明呢?其实,道理很简单,那就是以事 “Drilling grouting pile” invention patents ownership dispute (see the publication of 1992 fourth issue), from Beijing Metro Foundation in December 1988 to the patent administration in Beijing proposed mediation request.To May this year, Beijing City High People's Court made a final judgment, which lasted more than three years. The invention experienced a non-job - job - total - a non-service, after many twists and turns in the technology industry aroused strong repercussions. Some people raised the question as to why the Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court judged the invention patent of great value, such as “Drilling and Pressing into a Piling Method”, as a non-service invention of Tao Yi himself. Actually, the reason is very simple To do