專利法第7條「職務發明」的概念及解釋，長久以來困惑了臺灣學界以及實務界。整個問題的核心，在於條文中所出現「於僱傭關係中」一詞的涵義。提案機關於修法時，曾有認為該條涵義僅限於狹義的民事僱傭契約，然而學界上卻以上開意見為起點，逐漸擴張解釋涵義，以因應如派遣契約等新型態契約。相對於學說的演變，臺灣實務上卻是忽略了「於僱傭關係」等文字，直接從「僱用人指示」、「利用僱用人資源」等事實，作為認定職務發明的準則。本文淺見以為，上開學說和實務界的歧異，起因點應在於「職務發明」概念的界定，因為「於僱傭關係中」等詞的出現而造成混淆。雖然我國法院採行類似美國法的標準，以關注當事人約定內容的方式，來解釋職務發明的歸屬，但在認知到美國法認定專利權屬於單純財產權下，無論我國法院是否有意採取類似美國法的處理方式，此種論述或有討論的空間。本文建議在解釋「職務發明」時，或可以彼此間對於發明貢獻度的判斷，而非專注解釋「僱傭關係」一事，來決定權利歸屬。

The concept and interpretation of employee invention in Article 7 of Taiwan Patent Act has long baffled the judges and scholars in Taiwan. The lntellectual Property Office has expressed its opinion during legislation, stating that the term ＂during the course of employment＂ in the article shall be deemed as pure employment contract mentioned in the Civil Code. The scholars, however, gradually expanded its meaning so that new types of contracts as outsourcing can be included in the article. Contrary to the scholars' suggestions, Taiwanese court adopted another approach by neglecting the term and focusing on facts like ＂directions from the employers＂ or ＂use of the employers' resources＂ as guidelines in the issue of employee invention. This article addresses that the diversity between the scholars and judges results from the fact that the interpretation of ＂employee invention＂ is blurred by the existence of the term of ＂during the course of employment＂. Though Taiwanese court adopts an approach similar to American law by focusing on the interpretation of the terms and conditions within the contract between the parties, we shall bear in mind that since American law treats patent right as pure property right, adopting a similar approach as American law, whether intentionally or not, may leave room for discussion. This article suggests that instead of focusing on the meaning of ＂during the course of employment＂, contribution to the inventions by the parties shall be emphasized.