유전자원의 출처표시의 특허 요건화 연구

윤여강 ( Yuh Gang Yoon ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2012 홍익법학 Vol.13 No.3

The movement to make biological resource as an intellectual property is active, and recently agreed Nagoya protocol gives strength to the international protection system of biological resource. There are different viewpoints depending on their national status whether the disclosure of biological material resource should be as an element of patentability. Developed countries including United States and Japan, and Republic of Korea oppose to make the disclosure of genetic resource to an element of patentability. They are on the position that Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) could fulfill the needs of disclosure requirement of genetic resource. On the contrary to developed country`s position, biological resource rich countries including Brazil, Peru, India, China etc. insist to make disclosure of biological resource as an element of patentability. China and India revised their patent act to make disclosure of biological resource as an element of patentability. Europe Community including Sweden agrees to make disclosure of biological resource as an element of patentability and try to make international biological resource protection system in WTO, WIPO and CBD. However, Europe Community including Sweden regard the disclosure of biological resource as an formal requirements of patentability, not as an substantial requirements which can be an rejection reason to patentability. In Korea there are disputations whether a disclosure of biological resource should be an element of patentability. According to an opposition position to make a disclosure of biological resource as an element of patentability, they oppose to make a disclosure of biological resource as an element of patentability because there are needs to guarantee a free usage of biological resource to research and there is worrisome to be requested by royalty remuneration from biological resource providing country. But there are needs to make disclosure of biological resource as an element of patentability as following reasons. First, there are needs to secure biological resources for Korean biological researcher; Second it needs to disclose biological resource for Korean researcher to be protected their patent rights in countries who have legal system requiring disclosure of biological resource in a patent application; Third there is no need to install simultaneously biological resource disclosure system with Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) system; and Fourth, there is needs to introduce ABS system to mutual cooperation with biological resource rich country. For establishing disclosure system of biological resource in Korea, it is proposed to input a new paragraph to the Article 42(3) of Korean Patent Act, which is having “There should be a disclosure of biological material and its derivatives used for completion of invention which is protection sought in a detailed description of the invention.” It is also proposed that the disclosure requirement of biological resource should be a rejection reason, which can be used to encourage patent applicants to disclose biological resource to detailed description of invention. Also it is proposed that the disclosure requirement of biological resource should be a reason for ordinary people to provide information to a patent office so that a collective party or country eligible to have right of benefit sharing can file an information to patent office to prevent incorrect disclosure of biological resource and fraudulently disclosure of biological resource. However, it is proposed that the disclosure requirement of genetic resource should not be an invalidation reason because there is no role of biological resource for determining patentability such as novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, and beside biological resource it needs lots of inventor`s endeavor and creativity to achieve invention which should be protected to give incentive to inventor. The problem of deciding whether to require disclosure of genetic resource as an element of patentability may greatly effect on the development of Korean biological industry. Thus further study and discussion in this regard should be followed.

생명공학 관련 특허의 성립성과 In re Bilski 사건

최승재(Choi, Sung Jai),문대영(Daeyoung Moon) 세창출판사 2010 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.59

In 2008, the en banc bench of the Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit made its ruling on In re Bilski case. With the decision, the 12 judge panel suggested the new principle for the patentability named as the Machine or Transformation Rule(MOT Rule) and narrowed down the spectrum of the patentable subject matter which had once been broadened since the State Street Bank case of 1998. The new standard is now considered as firm in America. In consideration of the Federal circuit's change of attitude toward the patentability, this paper covered the case's effects on biotechnology patent. For that, several special issues on the biotechnology patent were dealt with, separated from the general patentability issues. Then, leading cases about the biotechnology patent were looked closely in connection with the Court's 2008 decision. Furthermore, the oral argument session of the Bilski case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court helped inferring certain possibilities. At the end, this paper derived four conclusions. First, the Classen case and the Prometheus case show that the Federal Circuit has been applying the MOT Rule to the biotechnology patents as well as the Business Method patents. The only difference is that the Circuit reads the term 'transformation' differently when it faces the biotech. Second, the Supreme court judges already shows their doubt about the MOT Rule, and reveals that they are aware of the need to handle the biotechnology field distinctly. Third, the impact of the Bilski case seems to get tougher, even it is to the attack against the biotechology patent itself. Fourth, the implications of the Bilski on Korean patent system would be more serious on the biotechnology rather than its original field of Business Method. In summary, the Supreme court's forthcoming decision on Bilski case will affects not only on the patentability examination standard, but also on the application standard of the patentability examination to the biotechnology patent. And it will gives a change to reconsider the Korean patent system, especially whether the definition of invention is suit for the new technology.

미국에서의 특허적격(Patent Eligibility) 판단에 대한 연구 - 인간배아줄기세포와 컴퓨터 프로그램을 중심으로 -

김창화 한국지식재산학회 2014 産業財産權 Vol.- No.45

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged the subject matter very widely, it has rejected the patentability against the law of nature, physical phenomenon, and abstract idea. The decision whether an invention can be patentable is based on the preemption concept and inventiveness concept. Thus, the judgment of patentability is made by preemption and inventiveness test. In addition, these tests are made not respectively but complementary. In other words, the judgment is composed of two step test: first step is judging whether an invention is not patentable; second step is judging whether an invention is addicted to the inventiveness. However, this two step test has some problems. One of the problems is what is unpatentable subject matter, and another is what degree of inventiveness is required for passing patentability. Due to the features of the problems, the standard for this judgment cannot be decided uniformly. But, it is necessary to set out the direction of the boundary and the degree because new forms of invention is developed continuously. The main direction should be the balance between the incentive of patent owner and public interests, that is, the purpose of patent law, and the judgment has to be examined as a whole. Moreover, considering the statute, the history of legislation, the protection for the existing patent, and the features of patentability, the scope of subject matter has not to be interpreted too broadly. Next, with regard to what degree of the inventiveness is needed, human inventive faculty makes sufficient difference from the unpatentable matter and the difference should not trivial, routine, well-understood, conventional in order to be meaningful limitations. In addition, since the judgment for the inventiveness test can be considered in other patent requirements, it has not to be interpreted strictly. The recent lawsuits concerning human embryonic stem cells and computer program should be handled by two step test which is composed of preemption and inventiveness concept like all others. Since the two matters may be included in the unpatentable matters, the judgements would be focused on the inventiveness. Of course, although there are many needs to limit the patentable scope, the judgment of the patentability of them must follow the above principle, and this is the best way to solve the social imbalance.

인공지능기술과 우리나라 특허법의 발명의 성립성

박형수 서울대학교 기술과법센터 2019 Law & technology Vol.15 No.5

우리나라 특허법은 “자연법칙의 이용성”을 기준으로 발명의 성립성을 판단하고 있다. 또한 법원은 발명의 성립성을 판단할 때 발명에 기술적 특성이 있는지, 발명이 구체적이고 실용적인 효과를 가져다주는지, 혹은 그러한 효과를 가져다주는 기술적 수단이 있는지에 초점을 맞추었다. 하드웨어 내부 또는 외부에서 물리적 변환을 야기하는 경우에 자연법칙의 이용성을 인정한 판례가 있었다. 또한 소프트웨어에 의한 정보처리가 하드웨어 또는 컴퓨터상에 구체적으로 구현되고 있는지를 발명의 성립성 기준으로 삼은 바 있다. 이러한 우리나라의 발명의 성립성은 일본, 미국 및 유럽의 발명의 성립성과 어느 정도 유사한 점을 공유하는 것으로 보인다. 인공지능기술이 발전함에 따라 인공지능기술이 우리나라 특허법 하의 발명의 성립성과 다음과 같은 면에서 충돌할 가능성이 있다. 첫 번째, 인공지능의 메커니즘은 설명하기가 어려워, 명세서에 발명에 대한 구체적인 설명을 요구하는 발명의 성립성 법리를 만족하기 어려울 수 있다. 두번째, 인공지능이 과학, 공학, 컴퓨터 등 기술적 분야뿐만 아니라 언어학, 문학, 경제학 등의 비기술적 분야에 적용됨에 따라 기술적 특성이 있어야 발명으로 인정하는 발명의 성립성 법리와 부딪칠 수 있다. 세 번째, 인공지능이 약한 인공지능에서 강한 인공지능으로 발전함에 따라 추상적 아이디어 또는 인간의 정신적 프로세스를 범용 컴퓨터에 단순히 적용한 것에 불과하다는 이유로 인공지능 발명의 성립성을 부정할 가능성이 있다. 하지만 이러한 잠재적 갈등은 우리나라 특허법의 발명의 폭넓고 유연한 정의에 의해 자연스럽게 해결될 수 있을 것으로 보인다. 입법부에 의해서 주도되는 특허법의 대대적인 개정 없이도, 사법부 또는 특허청이 특허법의 “자연법칙의 이용성” 문구를 유연하게 해석, 발명의 외연을 넓힘으로써 인공지능기술을 포섭할 수 있도록 하는 것이 좋을 것으로 사료된다. This article studies a potential conflict between artificial intelligence (AI) inventions and the Korean jurisprudence of patentability (or patent-eligibility). Article 2(1) of the Korean Patent Act defines an invention as “the highly advanced creation of technical ideas utilizing the law of nature.” Among others, Korean patent law determines patentability of an invention based on whether the invention “utiliz[es] the law of nature.” Abstract ideas and human mental steps are excluded from patentable subject matter as they do not “utiliz[e] the law of nature.” More specifically, when determining the patentability of the invention, the Korean Patent Office and the Korean courts focus on 1) whether the invention has a technical character, 2) whether the invention has specific and practical effects, and 3) whether the invention has technical means to bring about such effects. According to case law, an invention is held to be patentable when the invention physically transforms an object to another within or outside hardware. In addition, an invention is deemed patent-eligible when the invention specifically implements information processing by software to hardware or a computer. The Korean jurisprudence of patent-eligible subject matter seems to share some similarities with that of Japan, the United States, and Europe. With the development of AI technology, AI invention may be at odds with the Korean jurisprudence of patent-eligible subject matter in the following aspects. First, it is hard to explain the mechanism of AI, while the specification of an AI patent should specifically describe the invention in detail in order for the invention to be patentable. Second, AI is applied to non-technical fields such as linguistics, literature and economics, as well as technical fields such as science and engineering. Such a broad application of AI technology may be inconsistent with the jurisprudence of patent-eligibility, which requires that inventions have technical characteristics to be patent-eligible. Third, as AI evolves from weak AI to strong AI, Korean courts are likely to deny the patentability of AI invention on the ground that the invention merely applies an abstract idea or a human mental process to a general-purpose computer without an inventive concept. Fortunately, the potential conflict could be resolved by a flexible interpretation of the term “invention” under the Korean Patent Act. Without a revision of the Patent Act by the legislature, Korean courts and the Korean Patent Office should be allowed to broadly interpret the phrase “utilizing the law of nature” of the Patent Act, expanding the scope of the term “invention” to include AI technology.

The Patentability of a Computer Program as a Function of Its Relational Characteristic with Hardware

Lee, Sang-Mu Electronics and Telecommunications Research Instit 1998 ETRI Journal Vol.20 No.1

The patentability of computer program has been discussed because of its deviation from the traditional definition of a patent. The relativities of computer programs to hardware are classified to measure the relative patentability of computer programs in this paper. It can be seen through the patentability analysis that the change in patentability basically follows an exponent part of the function is a damping factor that determines a patentability degree or trend. The basic patentability of computer programs is revealed when the damping factor value is 1, and a statistical patent specification, an appropriate expression of applicability and substantiality of computer programs is needed to acquire a patent right.

등록특허의 신뢰성 강화를 위한 미국 특허법상 재심사 절차의 변화

심미랑 한국비교사법학회 2012 比較私法 Vol.19 No.2

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) reformed patent post grant reexamination proceedings. There are sequentially three types of patent reexaminations, Ex Parte Reexamination(EPR), Post Grant Review(PGR) and Inter Partes Review(IPR). An EPR is same to pre-AIA, so the primary requirement for obtaining a grant for reexamination is to prove that a “substantial new question of patentability” exists. For an IPR, the petitioner must demonstrate a resonable likelihood that he/she would prevail as to at least one of the claims challenged(35 U.S.C. §314(a)). In contrast, for a PGR, the petitioner must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged is unpatentable(35 U.S.C. §324(a)). The new thresholds presented in the AIA for both the PGR and inter partes review are substantially different than the current threshold for both inter partes reexamination and ex parte reexamination, which require a substantial new question of patentability. The new thresholds requiring a showing that the petitioner would “more likely than not” prevail for PGR and “a reasonable likelihood of success” for inter partes review is a higher standard for a petitioner to meet. The higher threshold for the new procedures should reduce the number of challenges to patentability to those challenges having a viable case for success. So remained valid patents after new procedures can be more reliable.

특허성을 갖는 UI/UX 융합디자인 개발 방안 연구

송지성,박수조 한국디자인문화학회 2019 한국디자인문화학회지 Vol.25 No.4

In the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, design and technology are becoming widely converged. Because UI/UX design is related to the interaction of technology and the way it is expressed, UI/UX design is an essential convergence factor. UI/UX design should be designed to be patentable. In such cases, UI/UX design is at the core of the overall technology and design leads the technology. Therefore, this study analyzed the way that UI/UX design can have patentability. First, we examined how the components of the patent technology system match UI/UX. Here, the UI was matched to what was seen during sensing, input, output, communication and storage, and the UX was matched to the computational process. Next, we discussed how to change the UX to match the patent technology system. At this time, the UX was filtered to remove human behavior and transformed into processes performed by each component of the technology system. Subsequently, the method of increasing patentability by changing the matched UI in the patent technology system was discussed. Here, a method of changing the UI over time and a method of interacting between UIs was derived. Finally, the patentability of the derived UI/UX patent elements was evaluated. In terms of industrial applicability, novelty and unobviousness, and monopoly availability, the UI/UX patent elements are highly patentable. Therefore, UI/UX design including convergence elements derived from this study can be defined as a new UI/UX convergence design. The development method of UI/UX convergence design is expected to increase its utilization in future design or technology development. 4차 산업 혁명 시대에서 디자인과 기술은 광범위하게 융합되고 있다. UI/UX 디자인은 기술의 상호 작용및 기술의 표현 방식과 관련되므로 필수적 융합 사항이다. 이러한 UI/UX 디자인이 전체 기술의 핵심이 되고 기술을 선도하려면 특허성을 가지도록 디자인되어야 한다. 따라서, 본 연구는 UI/UX 디자인이 특허성을 가질 수 있는 방안을 분석하였다. 우선, 특허 기술 시스템을 구성하는 각 구성과 UI 및 UX가 어떻게 매칭되는지 고찰하였는데, UI는 센싱, 입력, 출력, 통신 및 저장 과정에서 보여지는 것으로 매칭하였고, UX는 연산 과정으로 매칭하였다. 다음으로 UX를 기술 시스템에 매칭시키기 위해 변화시키는 방안을 고찰하였는데, UX를 필터링하여 사람의행위를 제거하고, 기술 시스템의 각 구성이 수행하는프로세스로 변환하였다. 이어서 기술 시스템에서 매칭된 UI에 변화를 부여하여 특허성을 높이는 방안에 대하여 고찰하였는데, UI를 시계열적으로 변화시키는방안 및 UI간 상호작용하는 방안을 도출하였다. 마지막으로 도출된 UI/UX 특허요소의 특허성을 평가하였는데, 산업상 이용 가능성의 관점, 신규성⋅진보성의 관점 및 독점가능성의 관점에서 UI/UX 특허요소의 특허성이 높다는 것을 알 수 있었다. 따라서, 본 연구에서 도출된 융합 요소를 포함하는 UI/UX 디자인은 새로운 UI/UX 융합디자인으로 정의될 수 있고 향후 디자인 또는 기술 개발 시 그 활용도가 커질것으로 기대한다.

유럽사법재판소 판결로 본 유전자 특허의 한계

박기주(Park Ki-ju) 조선대학교 법학연구원 2012 法學論叢 Vol.19 No.2

유전자 특허는 그 성립자체가 많은 논란을 일으킨 문제이고 지금도 그 논란은 계속되고 있다. 유럽연합(EU)은 이미 유럽생명공학지침을 통해서 유전자특허 및 생명특허의 문제에 대한 일정한 가이드라인을 제시하고 있었다. 그러나 생명공학지침은 그 자체로 해석의 여지를 남기는 대상으로 회원국은 각자의 특허법을 통해 유전자특허를 규율하고 있었다. 이에 대해 유럽사법재판소(CJEU)는 2010년 7월 6일과 2011년 10월 18일에 의미 있는 결정을 내리게 된다. 이 두 결정은 유전자 특허의 한계에 대한 유럽사법재판소의 법적 판단으로서 중요한 의미를 가지고 있다. 우선 2010년 7월 6일 유전자변형대두박(soybean meal)에 대한 특허 결정은 많은 당사자들이 연관된 국제적인 소송임과 동시에 유전자변형생물체의 산업적, 경제적 이용을 위한 특허보호의 범위가 문제된 사안이다. 이 판결에서 유럽사법재판소는 다국적 종자기업인 몬산토의 유전자변형생물체에 대한 특허가 기능적인 관점에서 제한된다고 판단했다. 그리고 유전적 특성의 발현시점이 현재적이어야 하며 과거 또는 미래의 가능성만 있는 경우에는 특허보호 대상에서 제외된다는 점을 판시하였다. 2011년 10월 18일의 판결은 유럽생명공학지침 제6조 제2항 c)의 인간배아(human embryos)의 의미가 무엇이며 인간배아의 산업적 혹은 상업적 이용이 무엇인지에 대해 밝힌 판결이다. 유럽사법재판소의 결정은 인간배아의 사용에 대해 제한적인 해석을 내리고 있으며 이에 대한 파장은 앞으로도 지속될 것으로 예상된다. 그리고 생명공학 분야의 특허 특히 유럽 내의 특허 위축이 예상된다는 견해들이 대두되고 있다. 앞으로 이 판결이 어떻게 보다 구체화될지 지켜보아야 할 것이다. 이 두 판결은 유전자 특허의 한계를 설정했다는 점에서 법률가들은 물론 생명공학자들의 비상한 관심을 받는 판결이다. 생명공학기술이 앞으로 발전해 감에 따라 일정한 법적 체제 안에서 기술발전이 이루어져야 한다는 목소리가 크다. 특히 인간배아의 이용과 같은 윤리적이고 철학적인 문제에 대해서 지혜로운 해결이 필요할 것이다. 또한 유전자의 산업적 이용이 무한대로 확대되는 것을 경계해야 한다는 목소리도 함께 나오고 있다. 이러한 민감한 문제들에 대한 법적 판단은 앞으로도 계속될 것으로 예상되며 우리도 이에 대한 연구와 대응을 서둘러야 할 것이다. The Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU) has issued the interpretation of the European Union Biotechnology Directive(Dirctive 98/44/EC), which established the foundation for patening genetic material in member countries. Monsanto Technology LLC v. Cafetra BV was the first decision by determinig that genetic patents are only effective when the patented gene “performs the function for which it is patented.” on 6 July 2010. The CJEU's analysis of the European Union Biotechnology Directive in the ruling in Monsanto Technology LLC v. Cafetra BV marks an important and definitive interpretation of European patent law. The finding that European Union patent protection of genetic material is “purpose-bound” helps clarify a murky area of patent law but places a significant limitation on biotechnology patents in Europe and may cause many holders of such patents to reconsider their comfort level with their patent portfolio. On 18 October 2011, the CJEU issued its eagerly anticipated decision in Brüstle v. Greenpeace(C-34/10) concerning the patentability of inventions relating to the use of human embryonic stem cells(hESC). The CJEU has ruled that inventions involving hESC derived from the destruction of a human embryo are unpatentable. Scientific, religious and environmental groups have keenly awaited this decision given the likely profound implication for the patentability of inventions in this field. The article will outline the major implications of the recent rullings of the CJEU in relation to the patentability of inventions relating to human embryonic stem cells and soy beans produced by soy plants that were modified with a gene developed by Monsanto.

판례평석 - 캐논사건 무효심판의 부당성

최덕규(Dukkyu Choi) 세창출판사 2013 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.72

Both novelty and inventive step are a core in the patent system. Novelty is one patentability which is introduced from the concept that a claimed invention must not be identical with any prior art disclosed before, while inventive step is another patentability which is introduced from the concept that a claimed invention must not be obvious to a skilled person in the art over any prior art to which the claimed invention pertains. Inventive step should be determined along with assessment of the prior art in view of the objects, structure (composition), results and effects of the claimed invention. However, it is not necessary to assess the objects, structure, results and effects of the invention when novelty is discussed. The reason is because the prior art in inventive step is limited to the same or similar technology area as the claimed invention, and because the prior art in novelty encompasses all kinds of technology. This is a very fundamental and important principle in patentability. However, Patent Appeal Board Case No. 2012DANG2456 and Patent Court Case No. 2013HER82 for Invalidation of Patent determined novelty of the patented invention by assessing the objects, structure, and effects of the invention in view of the cited invention. The patented invention relates to a photosensitive drum for printers, while the cited invention relates to a drill apparatus, whose technical field is totally different each other. Both decisions, Patent Appeal Board Case No. 2012DANG2456 and Patent Court Case No. 2013HER82, shall be recorded as the worst decisions by assessing novelty with a test method of inventive step such as the objects, structure, results and effects of the invention.

[특별기고] 대한민국 특허제도의 문제점 (Ⅲ) : 잘못된 선원주의에 대하여

최덕규 세창출판사 2011 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.65

Article 36 Section 1 of Korean Patent Law provides the first-to-file system in which a first patent application may be granted as patent in case that there are more than one patent application in which the claimed inventions are identical. In other words, the latter patent application(s) except the first patent application shall not be granted as patent under Article 36 Section 1. The patent examiner may reject a patent application directly under the Article. However, the first-to-file provision is not a patentability such as novelty or non-obviousness but a procedural requirement for defining the scope of prior art for determining novelty. A patent application shall not be rejected directly under the first-to-file provision but may be rejected under the novelty provision over the prior art defined under the first-to-file system. One of important objects of the first-to-file system is to prevent double patenting. However, according to Article 29 Section 3 of Korean Patent Law, double patenting may be allowed to the same applicant. In order to deficiency of Article 29 Section 3, a request for terminal disclaimer shall preferably be studied to adopt. A junior patent application which is filed within the grace period of 6 months from the date of disclosure shall have priority for granted as patent over a senior patent application filed after the date of disclosure and before the filing date of the junior patent application. According to Article 36, for patent applications filed at the same day, only one patent application may be granted as patent through negotiation by the applicants when the claimed inventions are identical. The patent applications filed at the same day shall be consistently treated under the first-to-file.