특허전문관리회사(NPE)의 사업모델과 특허권의 행사현황

윤선희,장원준 세창출판사 2010 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.60

NPE, Non-Practicing Entity is an corporation that makes profit through enforcing its patent rights without producing products from the patents. Its advent came from the U.S. patent and litigation system, that is advantageous to patent owner, like discovery, injunction, damage, venue shopping. Also, contingency free-based agreement encouraged NPE to litigate even baseless claim because it costed almost nothing even after losing the lawsuit. With the news that Korean companies suffered astronomical damage from patent infringement lawsuits from NPE, NPE came to arouse deep concern in Korea. NPEs have various business models. They includes the followings: ① Enforcing patent rights through licensing and raising lawsuits, ② financial firms that lend loans to NPE, ③ IP broker, ④ Asset management firm, ⑤ IP-based transaction firm, ⑥ Software company that develop patent analysis software. While NPE came to be regarded as an independent business model, the concept of monetizing IP has attracted attention from many companies. This paper discussed the framework of business model, which has been seriously discussed in business management area. Using the framework, the NPE business models has been analysed piece by piece. Evaluating the business model, two fundamental standard was raised. First, the business model should be sustainable in a long term. In other words, the income statement of a company using the business model should be positive or increase. In addition, regarding that companies have limited resources, the business model has its focus, which means that the company should decide where it will pour its resources. The components of the business model are followings: ① Customer segment that is group of organization and people which company tries to reach and serve, ② Value proposition that is group of products and service that create value for customer segments, ③ Channels that describe how to communicate with customer segments and deliver value proposition, ④ Customer relationships that describe type of relationship with customer segments, ⑤ Revenue streams that companies earn from customer segments, ⑥ Key resources that describe important assets to operate the business model, ⑦ Key activities that describe important works to operate the business model, ⑧ Key partners that describe networks between supplier and partners, ⑨ Cost structure that describes important costs to operate the business model. To build a groundwork to analyse further NPE business models, this paper inquired typical NPEs from the models. They includes Intellectual Venture of aggressive NPE, SPH America and Blue Stone Innovation from Korean capital, RPX·AST·OIN from defensive NPE, Invention Capital with Korean NPE business model. With the trend of monetizing IP, NPE should be regarded as an accepted business model, which means that Korean companies should proactively use NPEs to maximize their profits. This means that companies should use NPE to depend companies from unexpected patent litigation and to enforce their patents for harvesting their investment.

비즈니스 모델을 기반으로 한 서비스디자인의 특허화에 관한 고찰

천하봉 한국일러스아트학회 2012 조형미디어학 Vol.15 No.1

산업 디자이너의 창조적 행위에 대한 결과물인 제품·서비스, 패키지, 상표, 캐릭터 등에 대한 고유한 가치는 디자인권리를 통해 법적 보호받고 있다. 최근 애플사는 자사 제품디자인의 디자인권리로 비슷한 영역의 타 기업 제품에 대한 판매금지 처분을 받아냄으로써 자신들의 시장을 지키고 디자인의 고유성에 대한 보호를 할 수 있었다. 또한 제품 영역에서 애플이 보유한 각종 특허를 배경으로 글로벌한 특허 소송을 진행함으로써 자신들의 사업영역에 대한 보호와 향후 전략적인 시장에서 유리한 고지를 선점하려는 전략을 보이고 있다. 이렇게 디자인권리를 포함한 특허는 앞으로 기업의 중요한 자산이며, 최근 기업 경쟁력의 핵심으로 떠오르고 있는 사업영역(제품·서비스생태계)에 대한 시장 선점과 전략적 방어의 개념으로 이해하는 것이 필요하다. 이에 따라 사업영역의 보호와 관련된 특허로 사업의 고유한 방법적 모델에 대한 보호를 하는 비즈니스모델 특허에 대한 조명이 필요하다. 디자이너가 비즈니스모델 자체를 만드는 것은 아니지만, 비즈니스모델 특허를 받기 위해서는 기존 비즈니스모델과의 차별성이 반드시 필요하다. 이러한 차별적인 비즈니스방법을 창조해 내기위한 개발방법으로써 서비스디자인은 효과적인 대안이 될 수 있다. 이것은 서비스디자인프로세스의 특성상 기업의 사업영역에서 소비자가 경험하면서 일어나는 다양한 상황에 대하여 문제를 추출하고 차별적 경험솔루션을 통해 비즈니스모델을 새롭게 만들 수 있기 때문이다. 즉 서비스디자인 프로세스를 통해 기존의 비즈니스모델을 혁신하여 차별화된 비즈니스모델특허를 받을 수 있다는 것이다. 본 연구는 서비스디자인의 결과물을 다른 디자인권리와 같이 보호 받을 수 있다는 개념을 구체화하기 위하여 서비스디자인의 특성에 대한 분석을 바탕으로 비즈니스특허의 구조와 비교분석을 통해 논리적으로 특허화 될 수 있는 이론적인 근거를 고찰하였다. 그 방법으로 서비스디자인의 핵심인 경험혁신을 모듈화 시키고 이것의 구조적 형태를 바탕으로 한 서비스디자인모델의 개념을 제안하였다. 이렇게 차별적 경험 가치를 가지는 경험혁신모듈을 포함한 서비스디자인 모델은 새로운 비즈니스방법을 창출하며 특허판단의 근거를 충족시킬 수 있는 조건을 만들 수 있다. 이로써 기업에서 서비스디자인프로세스를 통한 유무형의 결과물도 다른 디자인권리처럼 법의 보호를 받는 영역에서 그 가치를 존중받을 수 있는 근거와 그 방법적인 토대를 구축해 나가고자 한다. The intrinsic value of the product, the service, the trademark, the character, and the package, which are the results of industrial designers' creative behaviors, are legally protected through design rights. In recent years, Apple Inc. was able to defend its own market and protect the uniqueness of its designs as it won a sales ban on products of other companies in the similar field as design right of its own product designs. Moreover, Apple had carried out strategies to protect it own business areas and to take the advantageous position in the strategic market in the future as it proceed global patent suits with many different patents that it owned in the product field in the background. It is necessary that the patent including the design right is understood as an important corporate property and a concept for prior occupation of the market in the business field(the product·service ecosystem) currently emerging as the core of corporate competitiveness and for strategic defense. For this reason, it is necessary to focus on the business model patent that protects unique business methodological models as a patent related to protection of the business area. Even if a designer does not make a business model itself, differentiation from the existing business model is positively necessary to get a business model patent. The service design can be an effective alternative as a method to create this differential business method. This is because it is possible to draw problems about many different situations that can occur when a consumer experience a business model in the corporate business area and to make a new business model through an alternative experience solution by the nature of the service design process. In other words, it is possible to get a differential business model patent by innovating the existing business model through the service design process. This study investigated theoretical basis that could be patented logically through a comparative analysis with the structure of the business patent based on an analysis on characteristics of service design to incorporate a concept that the result of service design could be protected like other design rights. This study modularized experience innovation, a core of service design, and suggested a concept of the service design model based on its structural shape. It was viewed that the service design model including an experience innovation module with differential experience value created a new business method and make a condition that could meet grounds to judge patents. Judging from this, this study aimed to establish grounds and methodological foundations that tangible and intangible results through the service design process in a corporation could have their values respected in the area that was protected by the law like other design rights.

특허전문관리회사(NPE)의 현황과 국내기업의 대응방안

윤선희,장원준 한국지식재산학회 2010 産業財産權 Vol.- No.33

After patent troll first emerged in Korean newspaper, it became a phenomenon in Korean society. While there has been many papers on the NPE(patent troll), they rarely discuss their specific business model and their characteristics, which can be used for Korean global companies. NPE, Non-Practicing Entity is an corporation that makes profit through enforcing its patent rights without producing products from the patents. Its advent came from the U.S. patent and litigation system, that is advantageous to patent owner, like discovery, injunction, damage, venue shopping. Also, contingency free-based agreement encouraged NPE to litigate even baseless claim because it costed almost nothing even after losing the lawsuit. With the news that Korean companies suffered astronomical damage from patent infringement lawsuits from NPE, NPE came to arouse deep concern in Korea. NPEs have various business models. They includes the followings: Enforcing patent rights after building patent portfolio with R&D or patent aggregation; Defensive model against such aggressive NPE; financial firms that lend loans to NPE; IP broker; Asset management firm; IP-based transaction firm. While NPE came to be regarded as an independent business model, the concept of monetizing IP has attracted attention from many companies. To build a groundwork to analyse further NPE business models, this paper inquired typical NPEs from the models. They includes Intellectual Venture of aggressive NPE, SPH America and Blue Stone Innovation from Korean capital, RPX, AST, OIN from defensive NPE, Invention Capital with Korean NPE business model. With the trend of monetizing IP, NPE should be regarded as an accepted business model, which means that Korean companies should proactively use NPEs to maximize their profits. This means that companies should use NPE to depend companies from unexpected patent litigation and to enforce their patents for harvesting their investment. Now, it is time to think about how to use NPE to meet Korean companies' interests. Korean IP policy makers, therefore, need to make up one's policies to utilize and nourish such NPE models.

특허 기반 사업의 비즈니스 모델 유형 분류

임창남,김승운 한국지식재산학회 2013 産業財産權 Vol.- No.41

초록 close As the knowledge economy is rapidly developed, patents become more important and a lot of patent based businesses are developed. Additionally, many researches have tried to classify business model of patent based businesses. In this research, I classify business model of patent based businesses as four types which are types of patent acquisition, patent finance, patent creation, and patent services of business model according to two objective criteria. The two objective criteria are whether the patent based business company owns patents while running a business and whether the patent based business company provides money when securing the patents.

제4차 산업혁명 관련 특허권에 부합하는 손해배상추정제도의 개선방안

권지현 ( Kwon Chihyun ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2021 법학논총 Vol.45 No.1

제4차 산업혁명 관련 많은 특허권은 방법특허로서의 비즈니스모델과 그 시스템에 관한 것이다. 이러한 비즈니스모델은 네트워크를 통하여 일반인에게 제공되고 있고, 이용자는 이러한 비즈니스모델을 다운로드받아서 본인의 사업에 필요한 입력데이터를 입력하여 최종의 창작물을 도출하는 실시행위가 이루어지고 있다. 비즈니스모델 등의 방법특허는 물건특허의 생산 및 판매 수량과 같은 정량적인 수량을 정확히 판단할 수 없기 때문에 현행 특허법 규정으로는 손해배상액 산정이 어렵고 복잡하다. 최근 개정된 제128조 제2항 제1호 및 제2호는 물건특허에 대한 손해액 추정규정이기 때문에 방법특허의 손해액을 추정할 수 없다. 대신 방법특허는 제128조 제4항(침해자의 이익액) 또는 제5항(합리적 실시료)의 규정에 의하여 손해액을 산정할 수밖에 없다. 제4차 산업혁명 관련 방법특허는 네트워크를 통하여 비즈니스모델이 제공되어 사용되고 또한 이용자가 다운로드받아서 이용하는 경우가 많다. 따라서 사업자의 사용 또는 직접 이용횟수, 이용자의 이용 횟수를 산정할 수 있기 때문에 현행 제2항의 물건특허와 같은 방법으로 손해액을 추정하는 규정이 필요하다. 일반 방법특허뿐만 아니라 제4차 산업혁명 관련 방법특허인 (플랫폼형) 비즈니스모델 및 그 시스템에 적용할 수 있는 손해액 추정규정을 도입하여 특허권자의 실효적 보호강화를 추진해야 한다. 도입방안으로는 현행 제2항 제1호 및 제2호가 침해자뿐만 아니라 특허권자도 반드시 당해 물건특허의 생산 및 판매 수량을 특정할 수 있어야 적용되는 규정이므로, 이러한 물건특허와 같은 취지로 방법특허에도 적용할 수 있는 제도의 도입이다. 도입의 방법론으로는 방법특허에 대하여 특허권자도 사용하고 있는 경우와 사용하고 있지 않는 경우로 구분하고, 이 중에서 특허권자도 당해 방법특허를 실시(사용)하고 있는 경우에 적용하는 규정을 도입하고자 한다. 즉 (ⅰ) 침해자뿐만 아니라 특허권자도 방법특허인 (플랫폼형) 비즈니스모델 및 그 시스템을 실시(사용, 사용을 위한 서비스 제공)하고 있는 경우를 전제로 하고, (ⅱ) 특허권자 및 침해자가 방법특허의 비즈니스모델을 실제 이용한 전체 횟수 및 기간별 횟수를 산정하고, (ⅲ) 침해자가 비즈니스모델을 제공한 기간 동안 특허권자의 이용횟수 및 이용감소의 횟수를 산정하고, 그리고 (ⅳ) 특허권자가 1회 이용에 의하여 얻은 단위횟수당 이익액을 산정하고, 이러한 (ⅰ) 내지 (ⅳ)를 근거로 특허권자가 입은 손해액을 추정할 수 있는 규정을 제128조 제3항에 도입할 필요가 있다. Many patent rights related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution relate to the service model and its system as a method patent. These service models are provided to the general public through the network, and users download these service models and enter input data necessary for their businesses to derive the final creation. Because method patents such as service models etc. cannot accurately determine quantitative quantities such as the production and sales volume of product patents, it is difficult and complicated to calculate damages under the current patent law. Since paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 128 (2) recently amended is an estimation of the amount of damage to the product patent. the amount of damage to the method patent cannot be estimated. Just in the method patent, there is no choice but to calculate the amount of damage pursuant to Article 128 (4) (the profit of the infringer) or paragraph (5) (reasonable implementation fee). In the method patents related to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the service model is provided through the network and used, and there are many cases where users download to use the service model. Therefore, regulations for estimating the amount of damage in the same way as the current product patent under paragraph (2) are necessary because the number of use or direct use by the business person or the number of use by the users can be calculated The effective protection of patent holders should be promoted by introducing a regulation for estimating an amount of damage applicable to the service model which is the method patents related to the 4th Industrial Revolution(platform type) as well as general method patents, and its systems. As the introduction method, the current provisions of paragraphs (2) 1 and 2 are applied only when patent holders as well as infringers can specify the quantity of production and sale of the corresponding product patent, and it is the introduction of a system that can be applied to method patents for the same purpose as these product patents. The methodology of introduction is to classify method patents which is used and not used by patent holders, and to introduce regulations applying when patent holders are also implementing (using) the corresponding method patents. That is, it is necessary to introduce a regulation which can estimate the amount of damage suffered by the patent holder on the basis of the following (i) to (iv) in Article 128 (3): (i) assuming cases where not only infringers but also patent holders are implementing platform type business models which are method patents and their systems (providing services for use and use), (ii) calculating the total number and the number of times by period in that the patent holder and infringer substantially use business models of the method patents, (iii) calculating the number of uses and the number of reductions of uses for the patent holder during the period providing the service model by the infringer, (iv) calculating profits per unit count earned by a patent holder from a one-time use.

특허침해소송에 있어서 Business Model특허보호 방안에 관한 연구

김원준 전남대학교 법학연구소 2011 법학논총 Vol.31 No.2

This paper examines the types of patent infringement, particularly related to Business Models (BM), and analyses them in the light of patent laws in other countries in comparison to Korean patent laws to determine whether they can be ruled as indirect violation of patent laws. Currently, many business models are being used on the Internet connected to a computer server. Since the Korean patent law (Provision 127) provides the criteria for patent infringement of personal items only, the law is not applicable to the items that are intended for public use and the patent rights of inventors of business models cannot be protected by the current law. In order to effectively prevent patent infringement on BM, it is imperative to make amendment to current patent law; with reference to the U. S. patent provision 271 and the Japan patent provision 101, subjective elements such as violator’s intention can be added to the criteria for patent infringement. As for the application of All Elements Rule for plural number of violators against an individual patent right, this paper reviews the rule and discusses whether the group of violators can be charged either fully or partially for patent infringement. There is also an issue of territorial principle with protection of BM patents. Germany, the U. K. and the U. S. have patent laws that are applicable out of their areas. Korea also needs to pass a new law to overcome the limitation of territorial principle from the Paris Convention. In the case of a BM patent violator having his server outside the country, the Korean patent law requires an amendment to control the act of infringement in order to prevent infringement and to protect patent rights. The issue of protecting BM patents right started in a U. S. court. Since Korea does not have adequate law against such cases and looks for the standard from outside, it is necessary to improve the Korean patent law and the patent system to fully protect BM patent rights. 본고에서는 특허침해의 유형 중에서 특히 BM특허와 관련하여 문제가 되는 침해유형을 살펴보고, 이를 간접침해 규정으로써 규율할 수 있는지에 대한 각국의 입법례와 우리 특허법상 간접침해 규정의 문제점을 비교하여 분석하였다. BM발명의 상당수가 인터넷 등 컴퓨터 네트워크로 연결된 범용의 사용자 PC를 단말기로 하여 서버(server)에 접속하여 실시된다. 현행 특허법 제127조에서 전용품을 전제로 하여 간접침해를 판단하고 있기 때문에 BM발명과 같이 구성요소가 타용도를 가지는 범용품인 경우에는 간접침해가 적용되기 어려워서 실질적으로 특허권자의 보호가 미흡하다는 문제가 있다. BM특허의 간접침해 예방에 실효성을 거두기 위해서는 향후 미국 특허법 제271조 또는 일본 특허법 제101를 참작하여 침해물품에 관한 객관적 요건을 다소 완화하면서 침해자의 침해의사 등 주관적 요건을 함께 고려하는 방향으로 우리 특허법의 간접침해 규정을 개정할 필요가 있다. 한편, 복수의 주체가 하는 개별적 행위가 더해진 경우에 어떤 특허권의 특허청구범위에 기재된 사항을 모두 포함하게 되는 경우, All Elements Rule을 적용하면 복수의 주체 중 누구도 특허권의 침해행위를 구성하지 않게 된다. 그러나 복수의 주체가 행한 일련의 행위를 결합하였을 때에 해당특허권의침해행위를 구성하게 된다면, 이들의 전부 또는 일부에 대하여 특허침해의 책임을 물을 수 있는 것인지에 대해서 문제점을 검토하였다. BM특허의 실시에서 흔히 발생되는 국경을 넘는 침해의 문제에 있어서 속지주의의 한계가 있음을 알 수 있다. 이에 대하여 독일, 영국 및 미국의 특허법에는 역외적용이 가능하도록 명문 규정을 두고 있다. 우리나라에서 BM특허권을 보호하기 위하여 파리협약의 기본원칙의 하나인 속지주의 한계를 극복할 수 있는 역외적용 규정을 새로 입법할 필요가 있다. BM특허의 침해소송에서 침해자가 특허청구범위 구성요소의 하나인 서버를 외국에 설치하고 있는 경우에 발생하는 침해행위를 방지하고 특허권자를 보호하기 위해서 실시 주체를 규율할 수 있도록 특허제도를 보완할 필요가 있다. 특허침해소송에서 BM특허를 법적으로 보호하는 문제는 미국 대법원의 판례를 통하여 시작되었고, 발전되었으나, 우리나라는 이에 대한 입법적 대응을 하지 못한 채 특허청의 심사기준의 개정으로 세계 추세를 쫓아가는 형편이므로 앞으로 BM특허가 법적으로 충분하게 보호받을 수 있도록 특허법과 특허제도가 개선되어야 할 것이다.

비즈니스 구성요소 분석을 통한 기업의 R&D 기술포트폴리오 가치평가모델

김영태 ( Young Tae Kim ),임광혁 ( Kwang Hyuk Im ),이상철 ( Sang Chul Lee ),박상찬 ( Sang Chan Park ) 한국품질경영학회 2012 품질경영학회지 Vol.40 No.3

Purpose: The purpose of this research is to develop the methods for evaluating the business value of a company`s technical portfolios. In this study, technical portfolios of 10 major manufacturers and e-Biz industries are examined first from a business model perspective. Subsequently, we suggest future direction of R&D for the pharmaceutical industry by deducing the leading industries sharing similar traits with the pharmaceutical industry. Methods: In order to evaluate and analyze the patents of the major leading industries based on the constituents of a business model, the target patents were selected through the following procedure. Results: First, In this study, using the data obtained from the patent analysis, the differences in the technology portfolios of specific business entities based on the constituents of their business models. Second, deduced business rules of particular business entities through classification analysis and role-model of pharmaceutical industry Conclusion: If enterprise discovers technological change and characters of other enterprise or technology, enterprise could judge a direction of technology which will be developed in the near term and a plan which utilized existing technology to increase enterprise`s profits.

미국 연방대법원의 BILSKI 사건을 중심으로 본 비즈니스 모델의 특허적격성

이동형(Donghyong Lee) 한국인터넷전자상거래학회 2012 인터넷전자상거래연구 Vol.12 No.1

Patent applicants(Bilski etc.) challenged denial of patent application for method of hedging risk in field of commodities trading in the energy market based on lack of patent-eligible subject matter. The Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interference suspended rejection of all claims in application. Applicants appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit affirmed the conclusion, relinquishing the ‘useful, concrete and tangible test’ which adapted in the case of State Street Bank 1998 and trying to establish machine-or-transformation test. Supreme Court affirmed the conclusion but expressed that machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process. This study is on the problem that Business Method on Internet is patentable or not. This study is on the patentability of computer software and business method. To be subject of patent it should be invention, and invention should use law of nature. But neither software nor business method are not using law of nature. So both of them are not patentable and Business Model is not patentable.

소프트웨어 특허 침해에 대한 구제 : 손해배상액 산정과 금지명령의 재량을 중심으로

김기영 서울대학교 기술과법센터 2007 Law & technology Vol.3 No.4

The purpose of patent system is to accelerate and contribute for the development of technology and industry by promoting and protecting invention and its use. But, the advent of software patent, especially business model patent, and the environment where technologies are connected with each other and too many patented technologies are involved in the development of a new product, are providing a very good play ground for patent trolls to extort large amount of damages from companies which manufacture and distribute products investing lots of resources. Patent misuse by patent trolls can result in stalling and discouraging the investment for new products, which can lead to the failure of the whole patent system. So, measures for protecting patents as well as preventing patent misuse should be considered. Patentees usually exercise their rights by seeking injunction or monetary damages, so proper exercise of their discretion by courts in issuing injunction and calculating damages is highly important for protecting patentee’s rights as well as deterring patent misuse. Courts should compare the benefits and damage for patentees and alleged infringers before issuing injunction. In that comparison, they should consider whether the related patent would be invalidated or the patentee is commercializing the patent. In regard to damages calculation, courts should keep in mind that Section 128 of Patent Act of Korea exists to prevent conferring excessive damages by setting the ceiling according to patentee’s production capacity as well as to make damages calculation easy and simple. So, courts should also consider patentee’s own intention and capability to reduce to practice the patented invention. Especially when the patented technology is related to the small portion of the infringing product, courts should consider how much the patented technology contributed in manufacturing and selling the product.

삼성전자의「인터넷상에서의 원격교육방법 및 그 장치」에 관한 무효심판심결에 관한 평석

이훈종 한국기업법학회 2002 企業法硏究 Vol.11 No.-

The practice of patenting business models received a major stamp of approval from the courts, when the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found in favor of Signature Financial Group Inc. in its dispute with State Street Bank & Trust. The court ruled that patents could not be withheld simply because they covered a business model. But in Amazon.com, Inc., v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc. and Barnesandnoble.com, Llc., A federal appeals court overturned a preliminary injunction granted by a lower court judge in Seattle prohibiting Barnes & Noble.com from using one-click shopping technology that allegedly infringed on arch-rival Amazon.com's online shopping tool. The court found that Barnes & Noble.com has mounted a substantial challenge to the validity of the patent in the suit. Because Amazon is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief under these circumstances, the court vacate the order of the district court that set the preliminary injunction in place and remand the case for further proceedings. In Korean Progressive Network Center v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action asserting invalidity in the Industrial Property Tribunal. The IPT found the patent claims are directed to statutory subject matter. Some people say that business model patent will likely provide incentives for parties in the field to innovate and it will give them an opportunity to derive significant economic gain from their innovations. But I question the value of business method patents. I think that in Korean Progressive Network Center v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the decision on the validity issue does not resolve the question of invalidity, because there is no comment on the question of obviousness. I think that Only applications - new and nonobvious computer-implementations - would merit protection.