현행 특허법에 있어서 미국 특허법상 징벌적 손해배상액제도의 도입 여부에 관한 연구

류은주 경북대학교 대학원 2008 국내석사

The purpose of this study is to discuss the introduction of Punitive damages which has already adapted in 35 United States Code section 284 to Korean Patent Law. Punitive damages of the patent law are assessed in addition to compensatory damages to punish the defendant for willful infringement and to deter him and others from such conduct in the future. The nature of punitive damages are not only civil remedies but also have criminal ones. Therefore, Punitive damages which have generally been accepted by the United States Court for over 200 years are not familiar in Korea which has a strict division between the civil law and the criminal law. However, currently the demand for the introduction of the punitive damages to Korean Patent law has being raised despite of the disharmony from the legal system between Unites States and Korea. This dissertation is for the discussion of this question in Korean patent law study. First of all, a general study on damages system against the patent infringement in the United States would be headed. The compensation by lost profits or reasonable royalty is the basis of the damages against the patent infringement. In addition, if there is a decision by the jury about willful infringement, the damages can be enhanced up to three times the amount of the compensatory damages by the court. This enhanced damages are the question in this study. Secondly, the damages against the patent infringement of the Korean Patent Law should be followed. The reality about the damages system in the Korea is not enough to protect the patentee because of the unreal amount of damages. The patent litigation need a lot of time and money but the damages could be assessed by the court is under lost profits. This problem cause the discussion about the introduction of the punitive damages in the patent law in Korea. Finally, this study give a careful consideration to the question whether the punitive damages could be introduced in the Korea Patent Law. Opinions which has been suggested about the question are examined throughly. In the view of the negative attitude of the introduction of the punitive damages to the Korea Patent Law, the problems that could be anticipated are presented and the alternative means of the punitive damages are suggested on this study. The purpose of this study is to discuss the introduction of Punitive damages which has already adapted in 35 United States Code section 284 to Korean Patent Law. Punitive damages of the patent law are assessed in addition to compensatory damages to punish the defendant for willful infringement and to deter him and others from such conduct in the future. The nature of punitive damages are not only civil remedies but also have criminal ones. Therefore, Punitive damages which have generally been accepted by the United States Court for over 200 years are not familiar in Korea which has a strict division between the civil law and the criminal law. However, currently the demand for the introduction of the punitive damages to Korean Patent law has being raised despite of the disharmony from the legal system between Unites States and Korea. This dissertation is for the discussion of this question in Korean patent law study. First of all, a general study on damages system against the patent infringement in the United States would be headed. The compensation by lost profits or reasonable royalty is the basis of the damages against the patent infringement. In addition, if there is a decision by the jury about willful infringement, the damages can be enhanced up to three times the amount of the compensatory damages by the court. This enhanced damages are the question in this study. Secondly, the damages against the patent infringement of the Korean Patent Law should be followed. The reality about the damages system in the Korea is not enough to protect the patentee because of the unreal amount of damages. The patent litigation need a lot of time and money but the damages could be assessed by the court is under lost profits. This problem cause the discussion about the introduction of the punitive damages in the patent law in Korea. Finally, this study give a careful consideration to the question whether the punitive damages could be introduced in the Korea Patent Law. Opinions which has been suggested about the question are examined throughly. In the view of the negative attitude of the introduction of the punitive damages to the Korea Patent Law, the problems that could be anticipated are presented and the alternative means of the punitive damages are suggested on this study.

(The) divergence in the pursuit of global patent law harmonization : the developing countries struggle and stand

Saet, Anna Liza B. 서울대학교 대학원 2017 국내석사

Global patent law harmonization is envisioned to provide facilitation to negotiations and commercialization of every potential invention. Basically, it offers a platform where each player can be at the same level and can respond and meet the growing need for development in parallel to the expanding industrialization and international trade. While the world is agreeing to more free trade and moving towards union of nations, paradoxically nations are asserting their own independence, their sovereignty and distinctiveness. Distinctiveness of its law is a valuable measure of identity and sovereignty of each country and basically responding to the specific needs of the society. The distinctiveness of each jurisdiction is too valuable a difference to compromise among many factors, and this primarily becomes a hedge to harmonization of laws and key reason for the divergence of many nations. With the arduous track towards harmonization this study presents the overview of global patent law harmonization, its importance and early efforts towards harmonization. Developed countries are considered to be the originators of the harmonization, their reforms and offered solutions that brought harmonization into its conception and early implementations were given a careful attention. This study also delves largely on the divergence in pursuit to a more harmonized global patent law. Despite the various efforts on harmonization, outstanding issues are still huge to bridge the gap between nations. The newly proposed harmonization - substantive harmonization has a slow development due to obvious tug-of-war among countries. The harmonization has impacted the developing countries economically and technologically as well as legislatively. While the LDC’s and developing countries are still in its struggle to cope with the TRIPS implementation, another substantive instrument is coming on its way. Proposed harmonization such as the SPLT would shrink the remaining flexibilities of the developing countries to catch-up. This may hinder the potential of the developing country of seeing its full capacity with IP system. Furthermore, harmonization could serve as legal imperialism to the LDCs and developing countries. This suppresses their sovereignty as they were obliged to align their laws to the one that is internationally implemented. As a developing country, the Philippines has its own share on the struggles and setbacks in fully committing to harmonization. While the country desires for a harmonious patent system and be at tuned internationally, the cost of having it and its implementation is too high that it becomes of less priority. Its economic sustainability and technological capacity, including the leveling of is capacity to the one that the harmonization is requiring from a participating country are few among the many challenges it has to hurdle. Still another concern delves on the impact of harmonization on policies focusing public interest especially health and access to medicines. These concerns would substantiate the divergence on the proposed harmonization, requiring a huge and careful attention from a developing country. Philippines, as a developing country, the road to harmonization is still an unsteady one where compromises have to be made if it intends to pursue further patent law harmonization. Finally, this study wants to provide founding theory and better outlook on the patent harmonization in the developing countries, which the succeeding researchers can further delve into.

職務發明에 關한 法制度的 考察

김낙균 延世大學校 法務大學院 2004 국내석사

The most of core invention are being developed by research institutes or enterprises generally. The invention by employee in the enterprises is not integrated systematically by legal system. This study analyzed employee''s job invention system and suggested reasonable direction of its operation as integrated one.This study investigated mainly on legalistic problems of employee''s job invention through legalistic and institutional perspective. The definition of job invention is ''the invention made by employees worked in the enterprises and related to their job include the scope of employer''s business in property and their job at present or past‘. Therefore the necessary conditions of the job inventions are, first, to be invention invented by employees, second, the invention should include the scope of employer''s business, finally, acts resulting in the invention were part of the present or past duties of the employees.A job invention article in Patent Law is special article to the general principle of the employment agreement in Civil Law. It has been improved with the invention or labour policy. In case of Korea, the basic concepts of the job invention such as definition, condition, and remuneration are prescribed in Patent Law, and the insufficient parts of Patent Law are complemented in Invention Promotion Law and Technology Transfer Facilitation Law and so on. A job inventor should be decided with priority given to his invention concretely and separately. There are two principles; inventor principle and employer principle concerning the ownership of the job invention. The job inventor shall have originally the right to obtain a patent or the patent right with respect to the job invention. The employer shall have a non-exclusive licence to the patent right concerned. The employee shall have the right to obtain reasonable remuneration when he has transferred to the employer the right to obtain a patent or the patent right with respect to a job invention, or has given the employer an exclusive licence in accordance with a contract or service regulation. Leading inventor''s creative effort and employer''s active investment to the invention and coordinating interrelationship of both sides should be maintained in order to make equitable profit.I proposed a scheme for the improvement of the job invention system. First, unified and integrated law system scattering each law on employee''s job invention or creative ideas should be established as independent law like as Germany case. Different conditions for the ownership of right between Patent Laws and Copyright Law as intellectual property law should be the same one in order to prevent conflict such as inconvenience of application and interpretation of law. Second, remuneration system should be established in order to provide guideline, and to promote the efficiency of job invention as semi-job invention law system. Third, employee should inform their inventions to the employer and should be decided job or non-job invention through a committee participated in employees and employers. Fourth, legislative regulations should be clearly established in order to maintain the property of inventor and employer in the process of succession in advance. 오늘날 産業이 高度化되고 技術이 複雜·多樣해짐에 따라 核心的인 發明은 대부분 기업체, 연구소 등의 體系的인 硏究開發(R&D)에 의해 달성되고 있다. 이러한 組織內의 從業員에 의한 發明이 職務發明이다. 따라서 본 考에서는 職務發明制度에 관한 法制를 체계적으로 分析·整理하고, 바람직한 運營方向을 제시하고자 하였다.제1장에서는 본 硏究의 目的과 硏究方法을 제시하였고, 제2장 職務發明의 意義에서 職務發明의 槪念과 類似槪念, 職務發明에 대한 保護의 必要性, 職務發明制度의 機能 및 職務發明의 權利歸屬에 관한 理論으로 使用者主義와 發明者主義가 있음을 살펴보았다. 제3장 外國의 職務發明制度에서 독일, 미국, 영국, 일본 등 주요국의 직무발명제도의 運營實態에 관하여 살펴보았다. 제4장 우리나라 職務發明制度의 槪觀에서는 職務發明과 관련한 法律體系, 직무발명의 成立要件, 職務發明의 效果 및 기타 직무발명과 관련한 支援制度를 살펴보았다. 제5장에서는 職務發明制度에 관하여 他 制度와의 關係를 分析해보고, 아울러 職務發明制度 자체에 내재된 解釋論上의 諸問題를 심층적으로 分析·考察하였다. 제6장에서는 職務發明制度의 問題點을 요약하고, 동 제도의 효율적인 運營方向에 대한 의견을 제시하였다. 끝으로 제7장은 結論으로 본 연구전체에 대한 要約과 본 연구의 限界 등을 제시하였다.職務發明이라 함은 “使用者 등과 고용관계에 있는 從業員 등이 그 직무와 관련하여 한 發明이 성질상 使用者 등의 業務範圍에 속하고 그 발명을 하게 된 행위가 從業員 등의 現在 또는 過去의 職務에 속하는 發明”을 말한다(특허법 제39조제1항). 따라서 직무발명의 要件은 첫째, 從業員 등의 發明일 것 둘째, 使用者 등의 業務範圍에 속하는 發明일 것 셋째, 發明을 하게된 行爲가 종업원 등의 現在 또는 過去의 職務에 속하는 發明일 것이어야 한다.職務發明制度는 提案制度의 일종이며, 특허법상 직무발명규정은 민법상 雇傭關係의 일반적 원리에 대한 特別法的인 性格을 갖고 있다. 따라서 국가의 發明定策 내지 勞動政策과 밀접한 관계를 가지면서 발전되어 왔다. 또한 從業員이 개발한 職務發明에 대하여 特許制度로 보호받거나 營業秘密로 보호받도록 選擇할 수 있으며, 從業員이 업무상 創作한 職務發明, 저작물, 컴퓨터 프로그램, 반도체 配置設計 등은 그 種類에 따라 각기 다른 법률에 散在되어 각각 달리 보호되고 있으며, 그 권리귀속관계 등의 법적 취급도 서로 다르다.職務發明者는 당해 발명을 중심으로 具體的·個別的으로 判斷하여야 하며, 發明의 着想에서 完成까지 實質的인 役割을 하였으면 發明者이다. 직무발명의 歸屬原則은 發明者主義와 使用者主義로 大別할 수 있는데, 우리나라는 發明者主義를 채택하고 있다. 따라서 職務發明을 한 從業員은 원시적으로 ‘특허 받을 수 있는 권리’를 갖는다. 使用者는 종업원의 職務發明에 대하여 無償의 通常實施權을 취득한다. 그리고, 종업원의 ‘특허 받을 수 있는 권리’ 또는 ‘특허권’을 使用者에게 豫約承繼 하거나 專用實施權을 設定할 수 있으며, 이 경우 종업원에게 正當한 補償을 하여야 한다.職務發明制度는 국가의 産業政策的 性格이 매우 큰 제도이므로 경제·사회적 상황에 따라 適正하게 運營되고 있는지에 대한 지속적인 檢討와 運營이 필요하다. 현재 우리나라의 職務發明制度는 從業員과 使用者의 보다 적극적인 觀心과 理解를 촉진하고, 從業員의 창의적인 發明努力과 使用者의 發明에 대한 적극적인 投資를 誘導하도록 양자간의 利益衡平의 관점에서 利害關係를 합리적으로 調停할 수 있는 法과 制度의 整備와 慣行을 정착하는 것이 중요하다. 이를 위한 향후 職務發明制度의 運營方向으로는 첫째, 從業員의 직무상 創作에 대하여 각 법률에 산재되어 있는 法制의 統一化가 필요하다. 둘째, 우리나라도 독일의 경우처럼 ‘종업원 발명에 관한 법률’을 個別法 형태로 제정하여 職務發明 관련된 사항을 綜合的·體系的으로 규율할 필요가 있다. 셋째, 職務發明補償제도의 實效性을 높이기 위하여 特許法 제40조에서 정하고 있는 ‘정당한 보상을 받을 권리’에 대한 最小限의 가이드라인을 마련해야 한다. 넷째, 使用者가 職務發明에 대해 단지 通常實施權만을 취득한 경우에도 從業員에게 正當한 補償을 받을 권리를 인정할 필요가 있다. 다섯째, 特許나 實用新案으로 보호받지 아니 하는 技術的 提案이나 商標權 등에 대해서도 職務發明補償制度에 준하는 입법적 배려가 요청된다. 여섯째, 從業員의 發明은 모두 사용자에게 申告하도록 하고, 職務發明인지의 與否는 노사양자가 참여하는 委員會 등에서 判定하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다. 일곱째, 共有特許인 경우 特許權의 處分 등의 權利行使를 自由롭게 할 수 있도록 하는 制度的 補完이 필요하다. 여덟째, 外國에의 특허 받을 권리의 承繼與否에 대하여 명확히 규정하거나 또는 그 補償을 분명히 하여야 할 것이다. 아홉째, 豫約承繼의 節次에 대한 규정마련이 필요하다. 열번째, 自由發明으로 간주되는 규정을 보완하여 직무발명을 출원하지 못하게 된 사정이 使用者의 故意나 過失이 있는 경우로 限定하거나 使用者의 職務發明의 承繼與否에 대한 通知義務를 부과하도록 한다.

Analysis of the Impact of the Patent System on the Industry : through historical examples

알렉산드레 서울대학교 대학원 2016 국내석사

The main objective of this research is to understand if the patent system that have always been seen as fundamental in the modern society is actually helping the economy and the industry sector. While the patent system is accepted by most, as a good way to protect invention, the social benefit and the impact of this one on the society has never been shown clearly by research. This study was made in the hope of bringing a bit of light on the subject. To be able to analyze the impact of patent law on the system, the description of its origins and the way it developed enables the reader to slowly understand the evolution of it and the issue of it. To be able to have a good understanding of the system, a review of the main evolution will be seen, first by developing the existence of a protection of invention in the ancient Greece, with the city of Sybaris and the development of diverse sector of its economy thanks to the patent system. Followed by the creation of the first patent law in the history made in Venice, the city indeed was one of the superpower of the 14-15th century, and the patent law enacted in the late 15th was probably one of the tools that did bring this development. The subject of American patent act and development of the patent law in England having been dealt with in many researches, this research will rather focus on the patent debate in the 19th century between, patent advocates and patent disclaimers. Will follow, an analysis of the modern patent system and the way countries accepted the standardization of norms to finally arrive to a global system of protection of the intellectual property by the ratification of TRIPS agreement by the developing countries. US negotiators of the Uruguay round of GATT have pushed the TRIPS agreement, the impact of new protections in developing countries having consequences on their economy that are necessary to deeply understand and have a global pictures of the consequences of patent laws on the world industries. To see how introduction of new regulations affects the economy of developing countries, we will see the examples of the introduction of patent regulation in Kenya and the effect it had on the country. Most of Kenyan patents been filled by foreigners or foreign companies with low disclosure of information. The Patent law being implemented in almost every countries nowadays, it would be could to adapt it to the different cultures and to the level of development of countries. Leaving more time for he unprepared countries to adapt their law and culture to the system of protection. Besides, some points of the actual system bring problems. The initial creation of the patent system was to satisfy inventors to be able to push a feeling of invention in the country by giving reward based on the utility of the invention. The problem is that the analysis of the situation of Netherlands in the 19th century shows that there is no such tendency of improvement of innovative feeling in the country before and after a patent law. Plus, the litigation fees being really high comparing with before, inventors are not as well protected as they might have been centuries ago. Most of the litigation involve not two sole inventors trying to prove their rights on an invention but two industry or, a sole inventor against a full industry. In this case it’s difficult to have fair litigation with fair judgment. Most of recommendation are based on the exploitation of results focus the developing countries. To be able to maximize profits and make patent a system that can be profitable for both companies and states, implementation of a slow patent law or delayed one, could help the developing countries to be able to broaden their knowledge and develop their market easier, and by this let global companies make profits. Second recommendation would be to push pharmaceuticals companies and software companies to actually invest in R&D in developing countries to be able to sell their or fill patents. Even if the investment represents a colossal loss of money at the beginning, the education and the technology improvement that result from it would enable developing countries to develop their market and finally satisfy both foreign company as well as locals few years later, while the lack of investments now represents a success on the short term but deprive most of multinational companies from a long term benefit they could make. A reform of the patent system is necessary to adapt it to the modern society as it always have been done in the past. This evolution would make the patent system good and profitable for all, and make a logic of win-win between countries and companies.

特許實體法條約(案) 主要爭點에 관한 硏究

전현진 忠南大學校 特許法務大學院 2006 국내석사

With the accelaration of borderlessness in technology and economy, inventors of all nations long for a global level of patent system whose provisions are uniformly set not only procedurally but also substantively, which enables the acquisition of patent right worldwide by a single patent application. Triggered by the U.S. proposal on international uniformization of grace period rules in the early 1980s, efforts for international harmonization of substantive patent requirements seemed to be completed with 「diplomatic conference for the conclusion of a treaty supplimenting. the Paris Convention as far as patents are concerned」 in 1991. However, it was suspended by the U.S. adhering to its first-to-invent system, and after that Patent Law Treaty(PLT) was adopted in June 2000, which harmonized only aspects of procedural patent requirements. At the fourth session in November 2000, Standing Committee on the Law of Patents(SCP) proposed items related to further substantive harmonization of international patent law during its future sessions: prior art, novelty, inventive-step, industrial applicability, sufficiency of disclosure and drafting and interpretation of claims. Possible issues on patentable subject matter are biotechnology inventions, computer software related inventions and business methods. Questions on sufficiency of technical character of these inventions are raised, and it is another controversial matter whether defining patentable inventions with technical character is necessary or not. In regard of patentability, it is necessary to discuss different standards for determination of patentability in each country. The U.S. has grace period provisions under first-to-invent system: however, the EU has limited non-prejudicial disclosure rules under absolute novelty concept. For this reason, there are some arguments about whether grace period provisions should be included, and if so, which level they would be. The U.S strongly proposes enlarging patentable subject matters and lowering patentability requirements. The EU desires stricter criterion for grace period and wants the U.S. to accept first-to-file system. Developing countries want provisions allowing exceptions to patentability, and wish genetic resources and traditional knowledge to be included in patentable subject matter. Whether SPLT comes to a settlement or not depends on that these different attitudes is well-harmonized with each other. This dissertation studies on the solution for unifying the Korean patent system by examining the main regulations of draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty(SPLT) and comparing these regulations with patent-related laws in Korea.

미국 특허법에서의 특허침해로 인한 구제와 우리 특허법에 대한 시사점 : 특허권 균형 시대의 도래

이주환 연세대학교 대학원 2015 국내박사

1980년대에 이르러 미국정부는 친특허정책(pro-patent policy)의 일환으로 1982년 연방순회항소법원을 설치하면서, 특허침해를 당한 특허권자의 구제방법을 강화하기 시작하였다. 우선 연방순회항소법원은 1983년 Smith International 판결에서 특허권자가 본안의 승소가능성을 강하게 증명할 경우 회복할 수 없는 손해가 추정된다고 판시하였고, 1985년 Roper 판결에서 소송본안과 마찬가지로 예비적인 금지명령에서도 당해특허의 무효성에 대한 증명책임을 피신청인에게 부담시켰으며, 1985년 Atlas Powder 판결에서 본안의 승소가능성에 대한 증명기준을 이전의 의문이 없는 증명기준에서 명확하고 설득력이 있는 증명기준으로 완화하였다. 즉 연방순회항소법원은 이 세 판결을 통하여 예비적인 금지명령의 인정요건을 대폭적으로 완화하였다. 또한 연방순회항소법원은 1908년 Continental Paper Bag 판결에서 연방대법원이 명시적으로 인정하였던 영구적인 금지명령에 대한 일반적인 원칙(general rule)을 채택함으로써, 특허침해가 판결되는 사건에서는 자동적으로 영구적인 금지명령을 인정하였다. 연방순회항소법원이 그 설립초기에 예비적인 금지명령과 영구적인 금지명령에 대하여 판시하였던 판결들은 미국정부의 친특허정책의 산물로서 특허침해사건에서 금지명령이 인정되는 사건의 수를 상당히 많이 증가시켰다. 다음으로 연방순회항소법원은 손해배상액의 산정방법에 있어서 특허권자에게 유리한 판례이론을 지속적으로 선고하면서, 특허침해사건에서 고액의 손해배상액이 산정될 수 있는 여건을 조성하였다. 첫째, 연방순회항소법원은 일실이익의 산정방법에서 1983년 Lam 판결을 통하여 장래의 일실판매에 의한 일실이익의 산정방법을, 1989년 State Industries 판결을 통하여 시장점유율 원칙에 의한 일실이익의 산정방법을, 1995년 Rite-Hite 판결을 통하여 예견가능성 원칙에 의한 일실이익의 산정방법을 최초로 인정하면서, 다양한 형태의 일실이익을 인정하는 것과 동시에 특허권자의 일실이익에 대한 증명을 용이하게 하였다. 둘째, 연방순회항소법원은 합리적인 실시료의 산정방법에서 1986년 Twm 판결을 통하여 가상적인 협상방법보다 고액의 실시료가 산정되는 분석적인 방법에 의한 실시료의 산정방법을 채택하였다. 셋째, 연방순회항소법원은 증액손해배상에서 1983년 Underwater Devices 판결을 통하여 적극적인 주의의무의 원칙을, 1985년 Shatterproof Glass 판결을 통하여 불리한 추정의 원칙을 채택하면서, 특허권자에게 유리한 증액손해배상에 관한 판례이론을 확립하였다. 결국 연방순회항소법원은 1980년대와 1990년대에 미국 특허법의 역사를 통틀어 특허침해를 당한 특허권자를 이례적으로 강하게 보호하는 정책을 펼치면서, 특허권의 보호에 대한 “황금시대(golden ages)”를 열었다. 그러나 2000년대에 접어들면서 연방순회항소법원이 그 설립초기에 채택하였던 특허권자의 구제방법에 관한 판례이론들은 다양한 문제점을 노출하기 시작하였다. 대표적인 예를 들자면, 연방순회항소법원이 채택하였던 영구적인 금지명령에 대한 일반적인 원칙은 자신이 보유하고 있는 특허발명을 실시하지 않으면서 영구적인 금지명령을 무기로 침해자로부터 고액의 실시료를 획득하려는 의도로 특허소송을 악용하는 특허괴물(patent troll)이라는 집단이 출현하게 하였다. 또한 특허권자에게 유리하게 설정된 손해배상액의 산정방법에 대한 판례이론은 당해특허가 보유하고 있는 경제적 가치에 부합하지 않는 고액의 손해배상액이 산정되도록 함으로써, 특허권자를 과배상(overcompensation)하였다. 결국 특허괴물의 출현과 특허권자에 대한 과배상은 미국 특허법이 목적으로 하는 기술혁신에 대한 장애요소로 작용하여, 미국의 산업발전과 경제적인 이익의 도모에 악영향을 준다고 많은 비판을 받았다. 마침내 미국법원은 특허권자의 구제방법을 강화하여 특허권을 강하게 보호하는 것만이 자국의 산업발전과 이익을 도모하지 않는다는 인식을 가지기 시작하였다. 이러한 인식하에서 연방대법원은 특허괴물이 특허침해소송을 통하여 영구적인 금지명령을 악용하는 것을 막기 위하여, 2006년 eBay 판결에서 영구적인 금지명령에 대한 일반적인 원칙을 폐기하였다. 그리고 연방순회항소법원도 손해배상액의 산정방법에 대하여 침해자에게 유리한 판례이론을 지속적으로 선고하면서, 고액의 손해배상액이 산정되는 현실을 타개하고자 하였다. 우선 연방순회항소법원은 일실이익의 산정방법에서 1999년 Grain Processing 판결을 통하여 특허권자의 수용가능한 비침해 대체품의 증명을 어렵게 하였고, 2001년 Crystal Semiconductor 판결을 통하여 특허권자의 가격침식에 의한 일실이익의 증명을 어렵게 하였다. 둘째, 연방순회항소법원은 합리적인 실시료의 산정방법에서 2009년 Lucent Technology 판결을 통하여 전체시장가치의 원칙이 적용되지 않은 사건에서는 할당원칙이 적용되어야 함을 시사하였고, 2011년 Uniloc 판결에서는 오랜 시간 동안 특허권자에게 유리하게 이용되어 왔었던 25% 실시료율의 원칙을 폐기하였다. 셋째, 연방순회항소법원은 증액손해배상에서 전원합의체로 2004년 Knorr-Bremse 판결에서 불리한 추정의 원칙을, 2007년 In re Seagate 판결에서 적극적인 주의의무의 원칙을 폐기하면서, 침해자에게 유리한 고의침해이론을 채택하였다. 결국 2000년대 이후부터 현재까지 미국법원은 강한 특허권의 보호(strong patent protection)의 시대의 종말을 선언하고, 균형적인 특허권의 보호(balanced patent protection)의 시대를 전개하고 있다. 현재 우리나라에서는 특허침해로 인한 손해배상액이 지나치게 소액으로 산정되고 있어서 많은 비판을 받고 있다. 특허침해사건에서 소액으로 산정되는 손해배상액은 특허침해를 당하여 손해를 입은 특허권자를 적절하게 구제할 수 없고, 발명자의 특허발명에 대한 동기를 약화시키며, 기업들의 특허발명을 위한 투자를 위축시킨다. 또한 소액의 손해배상액은 잠재적인 침해자의 특허침해행위에 대한 억제적인 기능이 효율적으로 이루어지지 못하게 한다. 결국 현재 우리법원이 산정하고 있는 소액의 손해배상액은 우리 특허법이 목적으로 하는 기술혁신을 통한 산업발전을 저해하고 있다. 따라서 우리법원은 미국법원이 역사적으로 손해배상액의 산정방법에서 채택하였던 판례이론들을 우리 특허법으로 적극적으로 수용하여, 지금보다 고액의 손해배상액이 산정될 수 있는 여건을 조성하여야 한다. 우리법원이 지금보다 고액의 손해배상액을 산정한다면 발명자에게 특허발명에 대한 강한 동기를 제공하고, 기업들의 특허발명에 대한 투자를 증가시키며, 잠재적인 침해자의 특허침해행위를 효율적으로 억제할 수 있을 것이다. 결국 이러한 상황은 다양한 기술 분야에서의 기술혁신을 유도하여, 우리나라의 산업발전과 경제발전에 이바지할 것이다. 그리고 현재 우리나라는 미국 연방대법원이 eBay 판결을 선고하기 이전의 상황처럼 특허침해가 판결되면 곧바로 특허권자의 특허침해금지청구를 인용하면서, 특허침해금지청구권을 강하게 보호하고 있다. 그러나 현재 우리법원이 특허침해금지청구권에 대하여 취하고 있는 태도는 빠르게 변화하는 특허분쟁현실에 대응할 수 없는 한계점이 있다. 따라서 우리법원도 특허침해금지청구가 특허권자에게 인용되어야 할 필요성을 검토하기 위하여, 미국법원이 영구적인 금지명령의 인정요건으로 채택하고 있는 형평법적인 요건을 채택하여야 한다. 만일 우리법원이 특허침해금지청구권의 인용요건으로 형평법적인 요건을 채택한다면, 앞으로 당면할 수 있는 다양한 특허분쟁의 상황에서 유연하게 특허침해금지청구의 인용여부를 판단할 수 있을 것이다. 결국 우리법원은 특허권자의 구제방법 중에서 손해배상에서는 지금보다 강한 특허권의 보호정책(strong patent protection policy)을 펼쳐야 하고, 이와 반대로 특허침해금지청구권에서는 약한 특허권의 보호정책(weak patent protection policy)을 펼쳐야 한다. 즉 앞으로 우리법원은 특허침해를 당한 특허권자를 구제하기 위하여 균형적인 특허권의 보호정책(balanced patent protection policy)을 펼쳐야 한다. 앞으로 우리법원이 균형적인 특허권의 보호정책을 추진하여야 하는 가장 중요한 이유는 우리 특허법과 특허제도는 우리나라의 산업발전을 도모하기 위한 산업정책적인 도구(policy-based tool)이기 때문이다. 또한 특허권의 정당성에 관한 실용주의적 시각 혹은 공리주의적 시각(utilitarianism)에 의한다면 우리의 특허법과 특허제도는 우리나라에서의 사회적 효용을 극대화할 수 있도록 설계되어야 하기 때문이다. 결국 우리법원이 특허침해금지청구권에 있어서는 지금보다 특허권의 보호를 약화시키고, 손해배상에 있어서는 지금보다 특허권의 보호를 강화한다면, 즉 특허권을 균형적으로 보호한다면, 우리 특허법이 목적으로 하는 기술혁신을 통한 산업발전을 유도하고, 나아가 우리나라의 경제적인 이익을 증가시킬 것이다. By the early 1980s, the Reagon administration began to practice a pro-patent policy for strengthening patent rights. Under the policy, United States administration had established “the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” by enacting the Federal Courts Improvement Act in 1982 and strengthened patentee’s remedies. First, the Federal Circuit had lowered the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunctive relief in patent cases through Smith International, Roper Corp., and Atlas Powder. Second, the Federal Circuit had formulated the general rule that in suits for patent infringement a permanent injunction would automatically issue upon a finding that the patent was infringed and that it was not invalid. Third, the Federal Circuit had found a lot of prejudication favorable to patent holders for calculating damages in patent cases. For example, the Federal Circuit had adopted future lost profits damages based on lost sales in Lam, the market share rule in State industries, and the foreseeability foreseeability rule in Rite-Hite. And the Federal Circuit had accepted the analytical approach for calculating a reasonable royalty in TWM. Also, the Federal Circuit had established the affirmative duty rule in Underwater Devices and the adverse inference rule in Shatterproof Glass for determining whether infringers’s behavior is willful patent infringement. In 1980s and 1990s, for 20 years, the Federal Circuit had opened the so-called “Golden Ages” of patent law. By the early 2000s, the case law the Federal Circuit adopted in its early days began to expose a variety of drawbacks. For instance, the general rule of a permanent injunction had caused so-called “Patent Trolls” that are companies that own patent rights, do not practice that rights, and is able to charge exorbitant licensing fees due to the threat of a permanent injunction issuing against potential licensees. And many precedents the Federal Circuit had adopted in calculating infringement damages had brought about an overcompensation to patent holders. Therefore, many jurists and scholars had criticised patent trolls and an overcompensation to patentees for deterring innovations and industrial developments in U.S.. Finally, United States courts began to have the insight that only strengthening patent rights would not promote its industrial developments and economic interests. Under the thought, U.S. Supreme Court had eliminated the general rule to deny a permanent injunction to patent trolls through eBay in 2006. And the Federal Circuit had continuously found new cases favorable to infringers for calculating damages in patent infringement lawsuits. For example, the Federal Circuit had made patent holders difficult in proving the panduit test for obtaining lost profits in Grain Processing and price erosion in Crystal Semiconductor. Also the Federal Circuit had suggested that the apportionment rule should be applied to the case which does not meet the requirements of the entire market value rule, and had destroyed the 25 percent rule of thumb. In addition, the Federal Circuit had abandoned the negative inference rule through Knorr-Bremse and the affirmative duty rule through In re Seagate. Eventually, from the early 2000s up to now, U.S. courts has ended an era of a strong patent protection and has opened an era of a balanced patent protection. In the Republic Korea, to undercompensate patent holders in patent cases has recently been criticised. First, an undercompensation does not properly relieve patentees who much damaged by patent infringement. Second, an undercompensation would weaken inventor's incentives and company's investments for creating new technologies in various fields. Third, an undercompensation would abate deterrence and punishment for patent infringement. As a result, to undercompensate patentees in patent infringement suits has substantially impeded industrial developments through technological innovations in Korea. Therefore, Korean courts should accept the case law that historically U.S. courts has established and developed for calculating damages in patent infringement cases. If Korean courts would adopt the case law, that will provide inventors with strong incentives for creating new technologies, and will encourage many companies to increase their investments. Also, that will effectively punish infringers and deter potential infringer's patent infringements. Eventually, all this things will promote innovations in a variety of technological fields and industrial developments in Korea. Now, a permanent injunction would automatically issue upon a finding that the patent was infringed in Korea. Namely, Korean courts strongly would protect a permanent injunction. But in this way the courts could not effectively counteract the environments of fast-changing patent lawsuits. So, Korean courts must choose principles of equity, in other words a four-factor test for determining a necessity that patentee should obtain a permanent injunction. If principles of equity of a permanent injunction will be adopted, the courts would flexibly find whether a permanent injunction should issue or not in a diversity of patent lawsuits. As in more than seen, Korean courts should establish a stronger patent protection policy in calculating patent infringement damages, at the same time a weaker patent protection policy in issuing a permanent injunction than now. That is to say, in the future the courts must carry out a balanced patent protection policy to relieve patent holders damaged because of patent infringement. That is why Korean patent law and patent system is a policy-based tool for promoting technological innovations and industrial developments in Korea. And in terms of utilitarianism, they are designed for maximizing Korean social utilities. Ultimately, If Korean courts will strengthen a patent protection for calculating damages in patent infringement cases and will weaken a patent protection in issuing a permanent injunction, that is to say if the courts will protect balanced patent rights, that will contribute industrial developments and economic benefits by promoting technological innovations in Korea.

特許法에서의 利用發明에 관한 硏究

곽준영 忠南大學校 大學院 2002 국내석사

Today, the economy is increasingly dependent on technology. Many countries give incentives to inventors by granting them patent rights for disclosing their inventions to the public. Cycles of technology are becoming increasingly fast and the number of improvement patents are much more than the underlying pioneering independent inventions. The law explaining what is an improvement invention is not always clear and the precedents are often not consistent. The object of this paper is to present the law in Korea relating to the patent protection of improvement patents and proposing a more effective system of instituting non-exclusive licenses. Improvement patents which have a dependent relationship with pioneer inventions add new elements to the pioneer invention's elements. So an inventor of the improvement patent has a patent right in the new elements. Judgements on dependent relationships and patentability are made in a separate manner. The dependent relationships can be given in a variety of interpretations according to the importance of the technology and the range of dependent relationship. When an inventor of the dependent patent uses his invention, he infringes another independent patented invention. The issue is resolved in two step. First, pursuant to the scope of patent claims are determined. Secondly, the determination of whether the claimed invention has been infringed. The main purpose of the Patent Law is to promote the development of scientific innovation. Often dependent inventions are not created because they would infringe the independent patents. This is undermining the policy objective of patent law. I argue in this paper that § 138 of the Korea Patent Law code can be employed to creat non-exclusive license agreement in such a manner that it could protect the incentive for potential inventors to creat new and innovative patent improvements over already existing independent patents.

生命工學 特許의 法的 問題點과 改善方向에 關한 硏究

程朱信 忠南大學校 大學院 2007 국내석사

In this dissertation, the solution to the industrial capability of a living-object patent and the ethical problems as well as the international position of Korea according to the patent-system within the restriction of patent law and the examinational direction of life engineering which is the author's intention were investigated, while discussing the legal problems of patent law and the concept and characteristics of a life engineering to examine the legal defects and the improvement of patent law. That is to say, this research is about the legal defects of patent law and the right direction to improve the patent law. Moreover, the intention of this research is to suggest the solution to respond the patent problems by analyzing the defects of patent law which are related to life engineering. For the reason that biotechnology has brought a huge industrial effect which can improve the international capability, this research is focused on the field of the intellectual properties. Anyway, it has been proposed to investigate the patent law about biotechnology which is related to the human-genome project and the animal cloning project by using stem cell research. Most of all, in the case of microbiological patents, especially it is required to describe the preparation of artificial organisms sufficiently in the patent applications, in U.S.A., Japan and several European countries. Secondly, in the case of plant patent, the research related to plants can be divided into two categories the method to grow new plants, the new plant itself. While the former is conserved in many countries unanimously, there is no general procedure to preserve the latter. Next, in the case of animal patent, while the methods to diagnose and cure the animals are patented in U.S.A., those kinds of patent applications are not allowed in Korea and Japan for the reason that there is no industrial applicability for the treatment and the diagnosis. However, the human embryonic stem cell technology is not allowed as a patent because the stem cells can grow to be a real human. Lastly, in the case of genetic technology, in 1980's there was a controversy about the patent registration of the applications which contain products obtained by the reconstructing genomes. Especially, there was an argument whether or not the human genome is a part of human body. In this research ESTs and SNPs which are the major subjects of international disagreement. Although traditionally the patent system is to reconcile the interests between public people and a private person, currently it becomes a mean for developed countries holding lots of patents to extrude developing countries in the economical point of view instead of a system to preserve the right of the inventors. Therefore, it becomes diminishing for the role of patent system to globally control the interests between public people and a private person. Instead, the patent system has been driven to be a way to increase the international competition. On the other hand, the characteristics of patent law in different countries can be seen in the ethical points of biotechnological patent system. The most important issue of biotechnological patent system is whether or not the technology utilizing human genome is allowed as a patent. That is to say, it should not be admitted that the possession of human is parallel to the existence of human. Consequently, it is the most important to drive patent system into conserving public interests to obtain the scientific and medical benefits brought about biotechnological research, while the economical point of patent cannot be ruled out. For this reason, it is the most important to solve the international conflicts regards to biotechnological patent system, because the international cooperation in the field of biotechnology is the least common interest to reconcile the global conflicts, which is the way to improve national and economical interests.

Essays in Law and Economics

Sukhatme, Neel U Princeton University 2015 해외박사(DDOD)

This collection of essays applies empirical techniques from economics to questions in law, with a focus on innovation and litigation. A common theme among these articles is that empirical analysis can be used to measure and predict how legal actors respond to economic incentives. Chapter 1 explores an understudied question in patents: what is the relative importance of patent term (i.e., duration of patent protection) across different industries? This article (co-authored with fellow Princeton Ph.D. candidate, Judd Cramer) measures term sensitivity through patent applicants' response to the passage of the TRIPS agreement, which changed how term was calculated. We find significant differences in term sensitivity across industries, some of which follows conventional wisdom (patent term is important in pharmaceuticals) and some of which does not (it also matters for software). Our measure is highly correlated with patent renewal rates across industries. This corroborates an intuitive prediction that we formalize in a model: industries that place a greater value on patent term tend to have higher expected profits toward the end of term. Chapter 2 applies these empirical results in a policy context. This law review piece explains how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office could increase its revenues and promote innovation by charging different patent "prices" for inventions in different industries. Such pricing could also be used to tailor effective patent term across industries, an emergent goal for many legal scholars. Chapter 3 turns to diversity jurisdiction cases, a prominent form of federal litigation. I develop a general model of forum shopping and empirically corroborate one of its testable predictions: parties (particularly corporations) who litigate outside of their home state settle cases more often than parties who litigate at home. My results are robust under a variety of specifications, including ones with fixed effects for plaintiff home state, years of suit filing and termination, forum, and case type.

公知公用技術의 特許法上 地位에 관한 考察

김창식 延世大學校 法務大學院 2003 국내석사

특허제도의 목적은 발명을 보호.장려하고 그 이용을 도모함으로써 기술의 발전을 촉진하여 산업발전에 이바지함에 있다. 이를 위하여 특허법은 산업기술을 발전시킬 수 있는 발명을 한 자에게 특허권이라는 독점배타적인 권리를 부여하여 발명의 동기부여를 하고 있다. 비록 일정기간의 권리이지만 특허권은 강력한 권리이다. 따라서 특허권의 부여와 유지에는 엄격한 심사와 사후 부실권리의 정리방안이 필요하다. 이를 위하여 출원발명은 실체심사를 통해 신규성과 진보성을 구비하였는지 등을 조사받으며, 특허권의 설정등록 후에도 이의 흠결이 있는 특허가 잘못 설정등록된 경우 무효사유에 해당된다. 그 이유는 공지공용기술과 동일하거나 그로부터 용이하게 推考될 수 있는 발명은 만인의 자유로운 기술수준으로 독점되어져서는 아니되기 때문이다. 신규성과 진보성의 판단에 있어서 기준이 되는 것은 공지공용기술이라 할 수 있다. 이는 유럽특허조약에서는 기술수준이라 하며, 미국특허법에서는 선행기술이라 일컫기도 한다. 즉 공지공용의 기술과 동일한 신규성이 없는 기술과 공지공용기술에서 容易推考가능한 진보성을 흠결한 발명은 특허성을 결한 것이며, 독점배타권을 부여하여 보호할 가치가 없는 것이다. 그런데 이러한 출원발명의 신규성 판단과 진보성 판단에 있어서 그 대비되는 기술은 공지공용기술이다. 특허법 제29조 제1항 각호의 사유에 해당하는 발명과 동일한 발명은 신규성이 없으며, 이로부터 출원발명이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자가 용이하게 발명할 수 있는 발명은 진보성이 없는 발명이다. 일단 제29조 1항 각호의 발명을 공지공용발명이라고 칭하기로 하고 이의 범위를 먼저 설정한다. 즉 출원 전에 국내에서 공지되었거나 공연실시된 발명과 국내 또는 국외에서 간행물에 게재된 발명, 전기통신회선을 통하여 공중이 이용가능하게 된 발명의 범위를 구체적인 기준을 통해 설정한다. 그 다음은 신규성 판단의 개요를 살펴보고 일반적으로 설정된 공지공용기술의 범위를 출원발명의 신규성 판단에 있어서 그 대비의 기준이 되는 기술로서의 지위로 파악할 때 출원발명에 대비되는 공지공용의 기술분야는 어떻게 한정해야 하는지와 기술수준은 어떻게 설정하여야 하는지 등을 살펴본다. 그리고 이러한 전제하에 미완성발명이나 선택발명 등 구체적인 적용에 있어 주의되는 부분을 자세히 살펴보고 판례의 경우 그 판단방법 등을 살펴본다. 그리고 비교법적 고찰로 유럽특허청에서 기술수준의 설정방법과 유럽특허청 항고심판부의 심결례를 통하여 구체적 신규성 판단방법을 살펴보고 또한 미국특허청의 선행기술 설정방법과 판례를 통하여 그 구체적인 판단은 어떻게 이루어지는지 살펴본다. 진보성 판단에 있어서도 원칙적으로는 출원발명의 진보성판단의 기준이 되는 것은 제29조 1항 각호의 공지공용기술이며, 그 인용참증의 기술분야와 기술수준은 진보성 판단의 구체적 기준과 관련하여 살펴보아야 한다. 그리고 또한 비교법적 고찰로 유럽특허청의 인용기술 설정방법과 유럽특허청의 심결례를 통하여 구체적인 진보성 판단의 태양을 살펴보고, 미국특허청의 선행기술의 설정방법과 비자명성의 판단방법을 판례와 함께 살펴본다. 이렇게 공지공용기술은 출원발명의 특허성에 대한 실체심사에서 엄격하게 그 범위가 설정되어져 신규성과 진보성 판단의 기준이 되며, 출원시에 그 요건이 구비되지 아니하여 흠결 있는 출원발명이 심사불비로 잘못 특허가 된 경우 특허권의 무효사유가 된다. 그러나 출원발명의 심사와 특허권의 부여는 행정청인 특허청에서 행하여 지며, 그 특허권의 무효처분도 특허청에서 행해져야하며, 반면 특허권의 권리범위의 해석작업은 일반 민사.형사법원에서 최종적으로 이루어진다. 이러한 권한분배의 원칙상 법원은 특허권에 대한 무효의 판단은 할 수 없다. 그런데 특허청구범위의 일부나 전부에 공지공용기술이 포함된 경우 이는 만인의 자유롭게 사용할 수 있는 기술에 대하여 독점권이 부여된 경우이고, 이러한 공지기술을 실시하는 실시자에 대하여 특허권자가 침해소송을 제기할 때 법원에서는 이를 보호할 수 있는 권리범위의 해석을 행하여야 한다. 이와 관련하여 권리범위해석의 원칙 일반을 살펴보고, 청구범위의 일부 또는 전부에 공지기술이 포함되어 있는 경우 권리범위해석에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 검토하고, 침해소송이 제기된 법원에서는 어떤 해석을 하여 공지기술 실시자를 보호할 수 있는지를 살펴본다. 이의 논의는 특허청과 통상법원간의 권한분배가 이루어지는 독일과 일본, 그리고 우리나라의 특허제도에 고유한 것이므로 독일의 학설과 판례의 입장, 그리고 일본의 판례를 중심으로 진행되어온 논의들을 살펴보고, 우리 대법원의 해석방법을 살펴보기로 한다. 이상과 같이 본 논문은 출원발명의 신규성과 진보성 판단에 있어 공지공용기술의 범위를 확실하게 설정하고 이로부터 신규성 판단과 진보성 판단에 있어 보다 객관적인 기준을 제시하고, 또한 특허권의 권리범위 해석에 있어 공지공용기술을 어떻게 취급하여야 하는지를 고찰함으로써 새롭고 진일보된 기술을 보호하여 산업기술의 발달을 촉진한다는 특허제도의 본래의 목적실현에 적합한 법제도 운용을 모색한다. The purpose of patent system is progress of the art in industry. The patent law allows an inventor the right of monopoly to motivate invention. Although this right is limited in term, the patent right have an exclusive right. So, before the allowance of the patent right, it must to be examined whether an applicated invention has qualification to be patented or not. For the purpose of this process, the patent law require a patentability to an application for patent. First of all, an invention must have a novelty. This means that an invention must be new in comparison with the prior art(This word is called 'the state of art' in EPC). A novelty is gratified if the invention was not known or used by others and not described in a printed publication before the application for patent. To examine the novelty, we have to see whether an invention is identical to the prior art or not. For the second, an invention must have a non-obviousness(This word is called 'inventive step' in other words). A patent may not be obtained though the invention have the novelty, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. The art which is identical or obvious in comparison with the prior art is a fortune of all the people. Then, what means the prior art? The meaning of the prior art is various in examining novelty and non-obviousness. where is the limit of the prior art and what's the level of the prior art is important in searching process. And who is a person having ordinary skill in the art. This problem is important in examination of the application. In this paper I will study the problem of what the prior art is, and who a person having ordinary skill in the art is and how to judge the novelty and non-obviousness of subject matter. And I will also look around the case of the supreme court in korea, and business affairs in the EPO and the USPTO. After registration, the patent right has the power of monopoly. But this power is restricted by the common law. The scope of claim is reillustrated by a court. I will study how to determine the scope of the patent claim. The scope of the patent right is determined by the principle that you have the right as much as you invent. The prior art and the art which is close to the prior art can not be exclusive. In determining the scope of the patent right we have to consider the scope of the prior art and the level of the art known or used by the public. I will study in this paper the influence of the prior art in interpretation of the claim and how to protect the person who carries the prior art into effect from a patent infringement nevertheless the claim involves the scope of the prior art in a literal meaning.