{"id":8980,"date":"2021-04-01T13:49:16","date_gmt":"2021-04-01T13:49:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/?p=8980"},"modified":"2021-04-01T13:49:16","modified_gmt":"2021-04-01T13:49:16","slug":"teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-hakkinda-yargitay-kararlari","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-hakkinda-yargitay-kararlari\/","title":{"rendered":"Teknoloji Transfer Ofisleri Hakk\u0131nda Yarg\u0131tay Kararlar\u0131"},"content":{"rendered":"<style type=\"text\/css\" data-type=\"vc_cmsms_shortcodes-custom-css\"><\/style><p>Teknoloji Transfer Ofisleri Hakk\u0131nda Yarg\u0131tay Kararlar\u0131<br \/>\nDAVA &#8211; 1<\/p>\n<p>Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen davada Ankara 3. Fikri ve S\u0131na\u00ee Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi&#8217;nce verilen 15.02.2011 tarih ve 2009\/317-2011\/37 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n Yarg\u0131tayca incelenmesi davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istenmi\u015f ve temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmakla, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in tetkik hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten ve yine dosya i\u00e7erisindeki dilek\u00e7e, layihalar, duru\u015fma tutanaklar\u0131 ve t\u00fcm belgeler okunup, incelendikten sonra i\u015fin gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n<p>KARAR : Davac\u0131 vekili, m\u00fcvekkilinin fizik m\u00fchendisi olup daval\u0131 firmalar yan\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flamadan \u00f6nce geli\u015ftirdi\u011fi &#8220;\u00c7\u00f6l Alanlar\u0131nda Tar\u0131m \u00dcr\u00fcnlerinin Yeti\u015ftirilmesi&#8221; ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 bulu\u015f i\u00e7in daval\u0131 \u015firketlerin patent ba\u015fvurusu yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131lar ile m\u00fcvekkili aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f herhangi bir devir s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan TPE&#8217;ne ba\u015fvuru a\u015famas\u0131nda bulu\u015f sahibi olarak m\u00fcvekkilinin belirtilmesine ra\u011fmen sonraki a\u015famalarda bulu\u015fun &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. ad\u0131na tescil i\u015flemlerinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin s\u00f6z konusu bulu\u015fu daval\u0131 firmalar yan\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flamadan \u00e7ok \u00f6nce geli\u015ftirdi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek, 551 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK&#8217;n\u0131n 11, 12 ve 13. madde h\u00fck\u00fcmleri uyar\u0131nca, m\u00fcvekkilinin bulu\u015funun kendisine patent verilmek \u00fczere tescil ve il\u00e2n edilmesinin gerekmesine ra\u011fmen, TPE&#8217;nin yan\u0131lt\u0131larak daval\u0131larca gasp\u0131 ve sat\u0131\u015fa arz\u0131 nedeniyle daval\u0131 holding \u00fczerinde olan dava konusu 2008\/02412 say\u0131l\u0131 ve &#8220;\u00c7\u00f6l Alanlar\u0131nda Tar\u0131m \u00dcr\u00fcnlerinin Yeti\u015ftirilmesi&#8221; ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 ba\u015fvurunun daval\u0131 \u015firketler \u00fczerinden al\u0131narak m\u00fcvekkili ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmesini talep ve dava etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 TPE vekili, davan\u0131n husumetten reddini istemi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 \u015firketler vekili, tescil i\u015flemlerinin hen\u00fcz sonu\u00e7lanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dava konusu bulu\u015fun m\u00fcvekkili \u015firketlerde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilen \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar sonucunda v\u00fccuda getirildi\u011fini savunarak, davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.Mahkemece, iddia, savunma ve t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re, daval\u0131 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. A.\u015e&#8217;nin 09.04.2008 tarihinde &#8220;\u00c7\u00f6l Alanlar\u0131nda Tar\u0131m \u00dcr\u00fcnlerinin Yeti\u015ftirilmesi&#8221; ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 2008\/02412 say\u0131l\u0131 bulu\u015f i\u00e7in patent ba\u015fvurusunda bulundu\u011fu, bulu\u015fu yapan olarak davac\u0131 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; g\u00f6sterildi\u011fi, patent ba\u015fvurusu yapma hakk\u0131n\u0131n elde edilmesi ile ilgili beyanda &#8220;Hizmet \u0130li\u015fkisi&#8221; se\u00e7ene\u011finin i\u015faretlendi\u011fi, ara\u015ft\u0131rma ofisi olarak tercih edilen Avusturya Patent Ofisi&#8217;nce &#8220;ba\u015fvurunun bulu\u015fu karakterize eden teknik \u00f6zelliklerin yetersiz olmas\u0131n\u0131n uzmana ara\u015ft\u0131rma yapma olana\u011f\u0131 vermedi\u011fi&#8221; gerek\u00e7esiyle ara\u015ft\u0131rma raporu d\u00fczenlenmeyece\u011fini bildirilmesi \u00fczerine TPE taraf\u0131ndan bu yetersizli\u011fin giderilmesi i\u00e7in ba\u015fvuru sahibine 08.10.2009 tarihinde bildirim yap\u0131lmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen \u00fc\u00e7 ay i\u00e7inde bu eksiklik giderilmedi\u011finden 551 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK&#8217;n\u0131n 58. ve Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fin 29. maddeleri h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca ba\u015fvurunun reddedildi\u011fi ve bu durumun ba\u015fvuru sahibi \u015firkete 13.10.2010 tarihli yaz\u0131 ile bildirildi\u011fi, patent ba\u015fvurusu daval\u0131 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. taraf\u0131ndan ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmi\u015f olup &#8220;patent isteme hakk\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fvuru sahibine ait olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131&#8221; hususu Enstit\u00fc nezdinde iddia edilemeyece\u011finden daval\u0131 TPE ve ba\u015fvuru ile ilgisi bulunmayan &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..A.\u015e&#8217;ne pasif husumet d\u00fc\u015fmeyece\u011fi, ba\u015fvuru yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda reddedildi\u011finden davan\u0131n konusuz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131, olaya 551 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK&#8217;n\u0131n 12\/III-1. c\u00fcmlesinde d\u00fczenlenen h\u00fckm\u00fcn uygulanmas\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclebilirse de somut olayda ba\u015fvuru TPE taraf\u0131ndan t\u00fcm\u00fcyle reddedildi\u011finden, KHK&#8217;n\u0131n 66.maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen ba\u015fvurunun geri \u00e7ekilmesi &#8220;daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131ya zarar vermek kast\u0131yla &#8220;geri \u00e7ekilmesi&#8221; olarak anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan somut olaya uygulanma olana\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131 dava konusu bulu\u015fun &#8220;i\u015f\u00e7i bulu\u015fu&#8221; olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 taraf, daval\u0131 yan\u0131nda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flamadan \u00e7ok \u00f6nce yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bulu\u015flar oldu\u011funu iddia etti\u011finden KHK&#8217;n\u0131n i\u015f\u00e7i bulu\u015flar\u0131 i\u00e7in \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen 29. maddesindeki &#8220;ba\u015fvurunun takibinden vazge\u00e7ilmesi halinde i\u015f\u00e7iye bildirim y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc&#8221; kural\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fletilmesinin de m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle daval\u0131 TPE ve daval\u0131 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. A.\u015e aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n husumet yoklu\u011fundan reddine, daval\u0131 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. A.\u015e. aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan davan\u0131n konusuz kalmas\u0131 nedeniyle karar verilmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131, davac\u0131 vekili temyiz etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>1- Dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7erisindeki bilgi ve belgelere, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde dayan\u0131lan delillerin tart\u0131\u015f\u0131l\u0131p, de\u011ferlendirilmesinde usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 bir y\u00f6n bulunmamas\u0131na g\u00f6re davac\u0131 vekilinin daval\u0131 TPE ve daval\u0131 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. A.\u015e&#8217;ne y\u00f6nelik temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddi gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>2- Davac\u0131 vekilinin daval\u0131 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.A.\u015e&#8217;ye y\u00f6nelik temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesine gelince, davac\u0131 daval\u0131lardan &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..A.\u015e. taraf\u0131ndan i\u015f\u00e7i bulu\u015fu olarak nitelendirilerek ve davac\u0131y\u0131 da bulu\u015f sahibi olarak g\u00f6stermek suretiyle dava konusu 2008\/02412 say\u0131l\u0131 patent ba\u015fvurusu yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, oysa bu bulu\u015fun i\u015f\u00e7i bulu\u015fu olmay\u0131p kendisinin bu \u015firkette \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ba\u015flamadan \u00f6nce ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirdi\u011fi serbest bulu\u015f vasf\u0131nda olmas\u0131 nedeniyle 551 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK&#8217;n\u0131n 11., 12. ve 129. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca patent isteme hakk\u0131n\u0131n gasp edildi\u011finden bahisle i\u015fbu davay\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemece, dava konusu bulu\u015f ba\u015fvurusunun ara\u015ft\u0131rma raporu d\u00fczenlenmesi a\u015famas\u0131ndaki eksikliklerin enstit\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan tan\u0131nan 3 ayl\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde ba\u015fvuruyu yapan daval\u0131 \u015firket taraf\u0131ndan giderilmemesi nedeniyle 551 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK&#8217;n\u0131n 58. ve Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fin 25. maddesi uyar\u0131nca reddedilmesi sonucunda davan\u0131n konusuz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle karar verilmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f ise de ayn; KHK&#8217;n\u0131n 8. maddesinde bulu\u015fa patent verilmesini etkilemeyen a\u00e7\u0131klamalar d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. Bu maddenin ( a ) ve ( b ) bendinde belirtilen hallerde ger\u00e7ek bulu\u015f sahibi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bilginin a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 durumunda a\u00e7\u0131klama bulu\u015fun yenilik ko\u015fulunu ortadan kald\u0131rmayacakt\u0131r. Bu bak\u0131mdan \u015fayet davac\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ek bulu\u015f sahibi oldu\u011fu ve patent isteme hakk\u0131n\u0131n gasp edildi\u011finin belirlenmesi halinde her ne kadar dava konusu olan 2008\/02412 say\u0131l\u0131 patent ba\u015fvurusu 551 say\u0131l\u0131 KHK&#8217;n\u0131n 58. maddesi uyar\u0131nca TPE taraf\u0131ndan reddedilse dahi bulu\u015fun ad\u0131na tescili i\u00e7in usul\u00fcne uygun yeni bir ba\u015fvuru yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 taktirde davac\u0131 ba\u015fvurusu en az\u0131ndan KHK&#8217;n\u0131n 8. maddesi uyar\u0131nca s\u00f6z\u00fc edilen dava konusu 2008\/02412 say\u0131l\u0131 ba\u015fvurunun yenilik unsurunu ortadan kald\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle reddedilemeyecektir. Bu nedenle uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu patent ba\u015fvurusu reddedilse dahi davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fbu davada ger\u00e7ek bulu\u015f sahibi oldu\u011funu ve patent isteme hakk\u0131n\u0131n gasp edildi\u011finin tespitini isteme hakk\u0131 vard\u0131r. O halde uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu patent ba\u015fvurusunun i\u015f\u00e7i bulu\u015fu veya serbest bulu\u015f niteli\u011finde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 buna g\u00f6re de davac\u0131n\u0131n patent isteme hakk\u0131n\u0131n gasp edilip edilmedi\u011finin tespitine karar verilmesi gerekirken kararda yaz\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7elerle davan\u0131n konusuz kalmas\u0131 nedeniyle karar verilmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f, bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n<p>SONU\u00c7 : Yukar\u0131da ( 1 ) numaral\u0131 bentte a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle davac\u0131 vekilinin daval\u0131 TPE ve daval\u0131 &#8230;&#8230;. Teknoloji Geli\u015ftirme A.\u015e&#8217;ne y\u00f6nelik temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddine, ( 2 ) numaral\u0131 bentte a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle davac\u0131 vekilinin daval\u0131&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;A.\u015e&#8217;ye y\u00f6nelik temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile karar\u0131n davac\u0131 yarar\u0131na ( BOZULMASINA ), \u00f6dedi\u011fi temyiz pe\u015fin harc\u0131n iste\u011fi halinde temyiz edene iadesine, 20.12.2012 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n<p>DAVA &#8211; 2<\/p>\n<p>\u0130lgili Mevzuat : 5521 \u0130\u015e MAHKEMELER\u0130 KANUNU ( Madde 1 )<\/p>\n<p>\u00d6Z\u00dc : TARAFLAR ARASINDAK\u0130 \u00c7EK\u0130\u015eME GEL\u0130R VERG\u0130S\u0130N\u0130N KES\u0130LMES\u0130 KONUSUNDADIR. BU T\u00dcR \u0130HT\u0130LAFLARIN \u00c7\u00d6Z\u00dcM YER\u0130N\u0130N \u0130DARE YARGI ( VERG\u0130 MAHKEMES\u0130 )&#8217;DIR. BUNUN SONUCU OLARAK MAHKEMECE G\u00d6REVS\u0130ZL\u0130K KARARI VER\u0130LMES\u0130 GEREK\u0130RKEN YAZILI \u015eEK\u0130LDE H\u00dcK\u00dcM KURULMASI HATALIDIR.<\/p>\n<p>DAVA : Davac\u0131, haks\u0131z vergi kesintisi kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6detilmesine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.Yerel mahkeme, davay\u0131 reddetmi\u015ftir.H\u00fck\u00fcm s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 avukat\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015f olmakla dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n<p>KARAR : Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u00e7eki\u015fme gelir vergisinin kesilmesi konusundad\u0131r. Bu t\u00fcr ihtilaflar\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm yerinin \u0130dare Yarg\u0131 (vergi mahkemesi) &#8216;d\u0131r. Bunun sonucu olarak mahkemece g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 verilmesi gerekirken yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 hatal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n<p>SONU\u00c7 : Temyiz olunan karar\u0131n yukar\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 sebepten BOZULMASINA, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde ilgiliye iadesine, 3.11.2004 g\u00fcn\u00fcnde oy\u00e7oklu\u011fu ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n<p>KAR\u015eI OY : Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k i\u015fverenin &#8220;&#8230;4691 say\u0131l\u0131 Teknoloji Geli\u015ftirme B\u00f6lgeleri yasas\u0131n\u0131n 8. maddesinde yer alan ve b\u00f6lgede \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan ara\u015ft\u0131rmac\u0131, yaz\u0131l\u0131mc\u0131 ve AR-GE personelinin bu g\u00f6revleri ile ilgili \u00fccretleri b\u00f6lgenin kurulu\u015f tarihinden itibaren 10 y\u0131l s\u00fcre ile her t\u00fcrl\u00fc vergiden muaft\u0131r. &#8230;&#8221; kural\u0131na ra\u011fmen davac\u0131n\u0131n 10 ayl\u0131k \u00fccretinden yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kesintinin iadesi talebidir. Davac\u0131n\u0131n iddias\u0131 \u00fccretinin eksik \u00f6dendi\u011fi \u015feklindedir. Vergi kanunlar\u0131na g\u00f6re yap\u0131lacak kesintiler i\u015fverenin g\u00f6revi kapsam\u0131ndad\u0131r. Vergi yasas\u0131n\u0131 i\u015fveren hatal\u0131 uygulam\u0131\u015fsa, eksik \u00f6denen \u00fccreti davac\u0131ya \u00f6demekle sorumlu olup, i\u015fveren varsa uygulamas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 vergi dairesine kar\u015f\u0131 talep hakk\u0131 mevcut olup, i\u015fverenin uygulamas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 \u00fccretini eksik alan davac\u0131y\u0131 vergi dairesiyle muhatap k\u0131lmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olamaz. Nitekim mahkemede olay\u0131 bu \u015fekilde yorumlam\u0131\u015f olup, dava mahiyet itibar\u0131yla \u00fccretin eksik \u00f6denmesinden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan g\u00f6revli mahkeme i\u015f mahkemesidir. Bu nedenle bozma karar\u0131na kat\u0131lam\u0131yorum.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Teknoloji Transfer Ofisleri Hakk\u0131nda Yarg\u0131tay Kararlar\u0131 DAVA &#8211; 1 Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen davada Ankara 3. Fikri ve S\u0131na\u00ee Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi&#8217;nce verilen 15.02.2011 tarih ve 2009\/317-2011\/37 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n Yarg\u0131tayca incelenmesi davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istenmi\u015f ve temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmakla, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in tetkik hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten ve yine dosya i\u00e7erisindeki&#8230;<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[31,32],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v15.9.2 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Teknoloji Transfer Ofisleri Hakk\u0131nda Yarg\u0131tay Kararlar\u0131 - Aytekin Hukuk<\/title>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-hakkinda-yargitay-kararlari\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Teknoloji Transfer Ofisleri Hakk\u0131nda Yarg\u0131tay Kararlar\u0131 - Aytekin Hukuk\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Teknoloji Transfer Ofisleri Hakk\u0131nda Yarg\u0131tay Kararlar\u0131 DAVA &#8211; 1 Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen davada Ankara 3. Fikri ve S\u0131na\u00ee Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi&#8217;nce verilen 15.02.2011 tarih ve 2009\/317-2011\/37 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n Yarg\u0131tayca incelenmesi davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istenmi\u015f ve temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmakla, dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in tetkik hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten ve yine dosya i\u00e7erisindeki...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-hakkinda-yargitay-kararlari\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Aytekin Hukuk\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-04-01T13:49:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\">\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"5 minutes\">\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/\",\"name\":\"Aytekin Hukuk\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-hakkinda-yargitay-kararlari\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-hakkinda-yargitay-kararlari\/\",\"name\":\"Teknoloji Transfer Ofisleri Hakk\\u0131nda Yarg\\u0131tay Kararlar\\u0131 - Aytekin Hukuk\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-04-01T13:49:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-01T13:49:16+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/e0d38a2a3c592f997f25899cc8767812\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-hakkinda-yargitay-kararlari\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-hakkinda-yargitay-kararlari\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-hakkinda-yargitay-kararlari\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"item\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/\",\"name\":\"Home\"}},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"item\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-hakkinda-yargitay-kararlari\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-hakkinda-yargitay-kararlari\/\",\"name\":\"Teknoloji Transfer Ofisleri Hakk\\u0131nda Yarg\\u0131tay Kararlar\\u0131\"}}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/e0d38a2a3c592f997f25899cc8767812\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8980"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8980"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8980\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8981,"href":"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8980\/revisions\/8981"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8980"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8980"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aytekinavukatlik.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8980"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}