La mondialisation a favorisé l’essor de l’innovation collaborative entraînant une augmentation du nombre de partenariats entre différents acteurs. Grâce à leurs avantages multiples, les projets conjoints jouent un rôle fondamental dans le développement économique et industriel des secteurs à forte valeur ajoutée. Dans cette optique, la création ou la quantification de valeur par l’innovation collaborative repose en grande partie sur la capacité à commercialiser des innovations encadrées par une protection intellectuelle adéquate. Ainsi, la tendance mondiale témoigne d’une augmentation accrue des dépôts conjoints de brevets entre diverses entités. Ces co-dépôts soulèvent une variété de questions juridiques puisque les régimes statutaires ne sont pas nécessairement adaptés à la réalité des partenariats. D’abord, les régimes lacunaires proposés par les lois n’anticipent pas les conséquences juridiques de l’interaction entre divers acteurs. La variété de configurations d’intervenants et la typologie des partenariats entraînent une confusion entre les inventeurs et les propriétaires lors du dépôt d’une demande de brevet. Cette situation peut également induire de facto la copropriété d’un brevet pouvant causer des litiges et miner l’énorme valeur des brevets conjoints. Ensuite, les régimes statutaires sont également déficients à l’étape de l’exploitation d’un brevet conjoint. En comparant les régimes juridiques canadiens et américains, il devient possible de mieux cerner les enjeux juridiques associés aux questionnements présents lors de l’élaboration d’un partenariat. Afin d’obtenir des retombées fructueuses des brevets conjoints, une mise en forme contractuelle est proposée pour pallier ces lacunes statutaires. Grâce à des outils contractuels et à une planification pré-contractuelle, les copropriétaires pourront réaliser l’énorme potentiel de cette institution. / Globalization has encouraged the development of collaborative innovation, leading to an increased number of partnerships between various actors. Because of their multiple benefits, joint projects play a key role in the economic and industrial development of high value-added sectors. In this context, the creation or quantification of value by collaborative innovation depends largely on the ability to market innovations having an adequate intellectual property protection. Thus, the global trend shows a significant increase in joint filings of patent applications between various entities. These co-filings raise a variety of legal issues, since the statutory schemes are not necessarily adapted to the reality of partnerships. First, the incomplete schemes provided by laws do not anticipate the legal consequences of the interaction between different actors. The variety of stakeholder configurations and types of partnerships leads to confusion between the inventors and the owners when filing a patent application. This situation can also lead to de facto co-ownership of a patent, which may result in disputes and undermine the tremendous value of joint patents. In addition, the statutory schemes are also deficient at the stage of the exploitation of a joint patent. By comparing the Canadian and American legal schemes, it becomes possible to better identify the legal issues associated with the questions presented during the development of a partnership. To achieve successful outcomes from joint patents, a contractual framework is proposed to overcome these statutory gaps. Through the use of contractual tools and pre-contract planning, joint owners can realize the enormous potential of this institution.

The government has indicated that innovation fosters economic growth and is essential to maintaining a competitive position in international markets. Patents are the preferred mechanism by which the Australian Government and other governments encourage their nationals to protect their innovations. The question of the entitlement was raised in several cases in the Federal Court of Australia where there has been a failure to name all of the inventors on a patent grant (non-joinder) or where persons were mis-named as inventors, who were not and consequently have no interest in a grant (rnis-joinder). In both cases, parties who were not themselves daiming an entitlement to the invention, brought objections based on a number of grounds, including entitlement. The results have been the revocation of the patent in the case on the non-joinder of an inventor and in the case of mis-joinder, the preliminary view of a judge of the Federal Court has been, that the patent would be invalid through lack of entitlement. The result is that competitors are permitted to 'exploit' the invention, as the subject matter is not protected by a patent. The implications are far reaching, For example, where a research team in collaboration with another develops an invention but omits the inventive contribution of even one member of one team or includes a person who has not made an inventive contribution in the patent grant, the patent will be invalid. In these circumstances, the author considers that the result produces a disincentive to innovate. Consideration of this area in other jurisdictions reveals that the U.S. and the U.K. have recognised this as an unsatisfactory state of affairs. As a result, Congress in the U.S. made provision in their Patent Code in the early 1950's, that in the case of error or mistake giving rise to a non-joinder or mis-joinder of inventors, the patent would not be invalid but could be rectified by the Director of Patents and Trade Marks (the 'Director'). In the U.K., the Comptroller has powers to deal with a wide variety of cases involving entitlement to ownership of a patent. The situations include but are not limited to cases where some but not all of the persons entitled to the grant have been granted the patent, i.e. non-joinder, or where a person entitled to be granted a patent, has been granted a patent together with a person who is not entitled, i.e. mis-joinder. The thesis will focus on the non-joinder and mis-joinder of inventors, but the U.K. provision addresses a wider field of parties entitled, whether entitled as inventors or on some other basis. In addition, the U.K. and Germany have made provision restricting the persons who are able to challenge a patent on entitlement grounds. This is restricted to those persons having an interest in the patent, rather than open to any person, as is the case in Australia. The Australian decisions have been determined on historic cases dating back to the 17th century. It is timely to consider amendments which will overcome revocation of patents under Australian law, for what is essentially a matter between the persons interested. These amendments will accordingly encourage innovation, particularly in an environment where intellectual property has taken on greater importance and where the identification of the inventor has become more complex as collaborations in research become more common.

This MSc Thesis focuses on the collision detection between scene objects and consequent resolution of such collisions on the basis of physical model. The implementation of all the applications and algorithms is achieved in Win32 environment in Visual Studio using the programming language C++; it also employs the graphical library Open Inventor based on OpenGL. The work also includes additional application for the calculation of physical values. The demo applications involve algorithms for detection and resolution of explosive collision by the use of a simple and physical reflection on the basis of physical formulas and relationships. The main demo application called "tunnel transit" incorporates a simple game engine. The thesis also includes a discussion over the aroused problems with collision solving and some suggestions how to overcome them.

High tipping shovel, wood chips, quick coupler, shovel, high tipping shovel frame, Volvo L60H loader, wheel loader accessories, linear hydraulic motor