특허법 구조 분석을 통한 '지식 경계' 명확화에 대한 연구

윤권순(Yoon Kwon-Soon) 세창출판사 2011 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.63

Patent is a property rights, therefore some degree of certainty in the content and application of patent law is necessary to work as a legal rights. Patent law has developed structures to increase predictability and certainty. A special language so called 'claims' had developed and some terminologies such as 'comprising' has comparatively clear meaning in legal aspect. However, the object of protection for patent law is knowledge which is inherently abstract. The scope of protection of a patent is defined by a language. To some extent, the nature of language and the purpose of patent claims make absolute clarity impossible. Ambiguity is present at all levels of process such as private drafting of invention, agency review, and judicial resolution of both administrative and private disputes. This article identify numerous factors that create indeterminacy in the patent system. This Article seeks to deepen the determinacy debate by comprehensively examining sources of uncertainty in patent law. It also attempts to explain why uncertainty is inherent in the patent law. In patent law, lack of determinacy has the potential to undermine a fundamental goal of the patent system. Patent law suffers from an unreasonably high level of uncertainty or unpredictability that threatens the patent system's ability to stimulate innovation. Legal uncertainty is inevitable in a patent rights system. Therefore, remedies for patent infringement should reflect the legal uncertainty of patent system. Legal uncertainty and potential abuse of enforcement measures make criminal punishment and interlocutory injunction unreasonable remedies for right holders

지식재산권법상 퍼블릭도메인(공공영역)의 개념사

윤권순(Yoon, Kwon-Soon) 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2022 法學論叢 Vol.53 No.-

퍼블릭도메인(공공영역, public domain)이라는 용어와 개념은 프랑스와 미국에서 전통적으로 국가나 정부가 소유한 토지를 나타내는데 사용되고 있었다. 지식재산권이라는 맥락에서의 퍼블릭도메인 개념은 프랑스 혁명이 일어나기 전인 구체제 하에서는 1566년 조례(l’ordonnance de Moulins de 1566)에서 ‘anciens livres(오래된 서적)’이라는 용어에 담기게 되고, 프랑스 혁명의 와중에서는 1791년 저작권법 제2조가 ‘propriété publique(공공재산)’이라는 용어에 담기게 된다. 이후 프랑스 판례에서 ‘propriété publique(공공재산)’용어 대신에 ‘domaine public(공공영역)’이라는 용어를 사용한 판례가 1836년에 나타나게 되고, 1866년 베른협약에 도입되었다. 미국의 경우 지식재산권이라는 맥락에서의 퍼블릭도메인 개념은 19세기 대부분의 기간 동안 주로 ‘public property(공공재산)’이라는 용어에 담겨져 사용되었다. 1873년 판례에서 ‘public domain’이라는 용어를 사용하고 있다. 한국의 경우 2012년 한국 대법원 판례에서 특허의 진보성과 관련하여 ‘공공영역’이라는 용어가 등장한다. 이러한 지식재산권법상의 퍼블릭도메인에 대한 개념사는 우리에게 다음과 같은 점을 시사해 주고 있다. 첫째, 퍼블릭도메인이라는 용어 자체가 우리 저작권법에 있는 ‘저작재산권의 제한’과 같은 표현 보다 더 긍정적인 인상을 준다는 점에서 우리 지식재산권관련 법조문의 ‘제한 또는 예외’ 표현을 ‘공공영역’으로 바꾸는 것을 검토할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 우리 법원이 ‘공공영역’으로 ‘public domain’을 등치시키고 있다는 점에서 ‘퍼블릭도메인’이라는 용어보다 ‘공공영역’이라는 용어를 지식재산권법적 맥락에서 사용하는 것이 타당하다고 판단된다. The term and concept of a public domain were traditionally used in France and the United States to represent land owned by the state or government. The concept of a public domain in the context of intellectual property rights was incorporated into the term “anciens lives” in the 1566 Ordinance (lordonnance de Moulins de 1566) before the French Revolution. The concept of a public domain was again incorporated into the term ‘propriété publique’ in Article 2 of the Copyright Act(1791) during the French Revolution. Later, a French decision used the term ‘domaine public’ in 1836 instead of the term ‘propriété public’, which was introduced into the Berne Convention in 1866. In the United States, the concept of a public domain in the context of intellectual property rights was mainly used in the term ‘public property’ for most of the 19th century. A decision used the term ‘public domain’ in 1873. In the case of Korea, the term ‘public domain’ appears in the 2012 Korean Supreme Court decision in relation to patent. Given that the term ‘public domain’ itself gives a more positive impression than the the term ‘restriction or exception’ in our copyright law, it is necessary to consider changing ‘restriction or exception’ in our intellectual property law to ‘public domain’.

특허괴물의 현상 분석과 특허제도의 본질에 대한 고찰

윤권순(Yoon, Kwon-Soon),윤종민(Yoon, Chong-Min) 세창출판사 2010 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.58

"Patent troll" was first coined by intel, whose in-house counsel was quoted to have said, "Patent troll is somebody who tries to make a lot of money off a patent that they are not practising and have no intention of practising and in most cases never practiced." They obtain patents, not to make, use, or sell new products and technologies, but sorely to force third parties to purchase licenses. The technology industry's principal complaint is that patent trolls have no interest in finding business solutions or "win-win" scenarios. A patent troll's only goal is to extract quick cash, not to create technology development. The rate of patent lawsuits is rising faster than any other type of litigation. As a result, company resources diverted from R&D to litigation may deter investment in innovation and distort its directions. Patent litigation is a high-risk, high-cost proposition. A Staggering fifty percent of all patent verdicts are reversed on appeal. The significant litigation costs provide a strong incentive for most competing companies to find a path to resolution outside of litigation. There is no provision for patents to be invalidated merely because they are used in manner that discourages innovation. Under the current patent system, a finding of infringement would result in automatic issuance of a permanent injunction and other penalties. The cost of litigation are often greater than the licensing fees the troll requests. These costs have adverse effects on future innovation because they take away from companies' research and development budgets. The results is that patent actually restrict the progress of science and innovation, the exact opposite effect that they are intended to have. The impact of patent trolls has led to propose patent reform act in 2005, 2007 and 2009. The patent reform act resets the table on issues of liability and remedies in ways that will encourage industry and discourage patent trolls. By lowering the threshold for invalidation a patent, the patent reform act will give targeted companies new opportunities to challenge the dubious patent. The rising speculation in intangible assets by patent trolls may indicate that patent are ready to evolve to the next level. Just as air space rights and carbon emissions before them, patents could be traded on stock exchange. This evolution could take the form of a Patent Investment Trust, modeled on the popular Real Estate investment trust. Patent Investment Trust could eventually lead to a stable market for patent sales and licensing. Patent has been well regarded as property like other tangible property. It is said that primary value of holding a patent is the right to exclude others from the manufacture, use or sale of the patented article. Actually, patent was a special legal privilege justified only because these "monopolies of invention" served the "benefit of society". Therefore, it is time to rebuild a sui generis right for information or knowledge based on their nature. The nature of knowledge is to dissemination. Therefore the legal structure for knowledge i.e. "Knowledge Right" should not contain injunction, but only contain monetary compensation.

독립적 법체계로서의 과학기술법 개념 고찰

윤권순 ( Kwon Soon Yoon ) 한남대학교 과학기술법연구원 2011 과학기술법연구 Vol.17 No.2

Law of Science & Technology has not been recognised as independent legal system as the same level as civil, criminal, administrative and commercial law. It took a certain amount of time before administrative law, commercial law and economic law had been accepted as an independent legal system. Therefore, if there is rational ground, Law of Science & Technology will likely evolve into independent legal system. In this paper, the author reviews the existing discussion about the definition of law of science and technology and considers rational ground of it. It is dynamic process that certain legal system has been accepted as independent legal system. It comes from legal scholar`s proactive response to the change of specific social phenomenon. The Administrative Law, Labor Law, Commercial Law, Economic Law recognized as an independent legal system have common point as follows. First, the new environment which the existing legal system (civil law or civil law and criminal law, etc.) does not cover has appeared. Second, the new legal system has special and unique legal system that existing legal system does not have. Law of Science & Technology has these characteristics. First, even though the history of science and technology is very old, positive and negative impact of science and technology on society has exceed certain limitation after the Second World War. In particular, the dangers of science and technology could lead to the degree of extinction of the human race. Therefore, while the need to regulate the science and technology increases, the existing legal system is not designed for this purposes. Second, a new legal system named the law of science and technology have a specific purpose to enhance the quality of human life by steering science and technology, which existing legal systems do not have. Therefore, there are sound ground to believe that the law of science and technology will be considered as independent legal area as the same level as administrative law, labor law, commercial law and economic law.

베니스 특허법 분석을 통한 특허제도 본질에 대한 고찰

윤권순 ( Yoon Kwon-soon ) 한국지식재산연구원 2006 지식재산연구 Vol.1 No.1

The patent system has significant influence on knowledge-based economy. This article has studied Venetian Patent Act known as the origin of modern patent system in order to get some implications about how to manage patent system nowadays. The European patent system arose out of the desire of rulers to encourage the development of new industries. The purpose of Venetian patent Act is to discourage the emigration of skilled craftsmen and encourage skilled workers to immigrate into the Republic of Venice. One of the notable features of Venetian patent Act is that it focused on manufacture of products originated from new ideas. It did not separate new ideas from products embodying it. One the other hand, modem patent system protects new ideas as a property as such. Therefore, in many countries patentee has no obligation to make or use the invention provided that patented products are imported into the country. There is a marked contrast between a tool to encourage new industry and natural right for inventor in considering the essence of patent system. It is time to reconsider the role of patent system.

영국 특허법상 발명성(inventiveness) 개념의 역사적 기원

윤권순(Yoon, Kwon-Soon) 인하대학교 법학연구소 2022 法學硏究 Vol.25 No.1

영국에서의 발명성 개념은 1600년대를 전후하여 등장하였다. 영국에서 베니스 특허법과 같은 성문법은 1624년 만들어졌지만, 그 이전에도 특정 기술을 영국에 도입하는 기술자에 대해 독점권을 부여한 사례가 있어 왔다. 특히, 엘리자베스 여왕 시기인 16세기 후반기에 이러한 사례들에서 ‘발명성’의 흔적을 찾아 볼 수 있다. 이미 존재하는 국내 기술과는 다르지만, 발명적 가치가 높지 않은 기술에 대해 독점권을 부여한다면 오히려 영국 국내 산업발전에 방해가 된다는 시각이 당시 판례에서 발견되고 있으며, 이것이 영국에서의 발명성 개념의 씨앗이라고 볼 수 있다. 영국에서의 발명성 개념의 역사적 기원은 다양한 측면에서 바라볼 수 있다. 첫째, 법률적 차원에서 1624년 제정된 독점법은 그 개념을 포괄적으로 담고 있다고 할 수 있다. 이 법에서 명확하게 발명이라는 용어를 사용하고 있지는 않지만, 특허권을 받기 위해서는 새로운 뿐 아니라 왕국에 도움이 되어야 한다는 어구를 포함하고 있어 일정한 수준의 발명을 요구한다고 해석될 여지가 있다고 하겠다. 둘째, 판례법적 차원에서 1602년 판례(Darcy v. Allin)를 들 수 있다. 동 판례는 새롭고, 영국에 도움 되는(good) 기술을 특허요건으로 규정하고 있으며, 그 구체적 기준으로 신규성에 더해 ‘큰 차이’를 덧붙이고 있다. 이는 오늘날의 진보성 개념으로 이어진다고 하겠다. 셋째, 이론적 차원에서는 1644년 출판된 코크의 저서를 들 수 있다. 코크는 1624년 독점법의 의미를 설명하면서, 특허요건으로 신규성과 별개로 ‘실질적이고 본질적인 새로움’을 요구하고 있으며, 원 발명 보다 쉽게 발명할 수 있는 개량발명의 특허성을 부정하여 발명성 개념을 보다 구체화 하고 있다. 17세기에 형성된 영국의 발명성 법리와 관련한 시사점을 들면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 특허요건이 시대의 산업정책에 큰 영향을 받고 있다는 점이다. 엘리자베스 여왕 시대 선진산업의 도입을 목표로 독점 특허권을 주로 외국인에게 부여했기 때문에 발명성의 기준이 높게 나타나고 있으며, 개량 발명에는 특허권을 부여하고 있지 않았다. 둘째, 영국의 발명성 개념 가운데, 판례에 나타난 ‘작은 차이’에 대해 특허를 주지 않는다는 문구는 1791년 프랑스 특허법 제2조의 문구 및 1793년 미국 특허법 제2조 매우 유사하다는 점이다. 이는 일부 학계의 의견과는 달리 영국이 발명성 개념의 형성과 발전에 기여하였다는 점을 보여준다고 하겠다. 셋째, 1474년 제정된 베니스 특허법에서 나타난 ‘재능성(ingenuity)’이라는 용어와 개념이 영국의 1711년 판례(Mitchell v. Reynolds)에서 유사하게 나타나는데, 이는 1851년 미국 판례(Hotchkiss)의 발명성 요건과 유사하다는 점이다. 이와 같이 영국의 판례는 베니스 특허법에서 나타난 발명성 개념을 미국으로 전달해주고 있는 측면이 있다. 넷째, 한국이나 일본의 특허법 조문에서는 특이하게도 비용이성을 핵심 내용으로 삼고 있는데, 이에 대한 선례를 1644년 코크경의 주석에서 찾아볼 수 있다. 이는 우리나라에서의 진보성 개념의 역사적 기원과 관련 지울 수 있다고 하겠다. 다섯째, 17세기 전반기 영국에서 발명성 개념이 형성되었으나 이를 담는 발명성 등과 같은 적합한 용어가 없었으며 이로 인해 법리로서의 확고한 위치를 확보하는데 어려움이 있었다는 점이다. 용어의 중요성과 성문화의 중요성을 보여주는 사례이다. In the U.K., the concept of inventiveness was emerged before and after the 1600s. The legislation for patents in the U.K. was made in 1624, but it had been granted exclusive rights to those who introduce certain technologies from foreign countries. In particular, traces of the concept of "inventiveness" can be found among rulings on patents in the second half of the 16th century during Queen Elizabeth"s reign. It was found in precedents at the time that granting monopoly rights to technologies similar to domestic technologies and not having high technical value would rather hinder the development of domestic industries in the U.K. This can be seen as the seed of the concept of inventiveness in the U.K. The historical origin of this concept can be viewed from various aspects. First, from the perspective of the legislation, it can be said that the concept may be contained in the Monopoly Act enacted in 1624. Although the term invention is not clearly used in this act there is room for interpretation that it requires a certain level of inventiveness as it includes a phrase that must be helpful the kingdom in order to obtain a patent right. Second, in the context of common law, the precedent (Darcy v. Allin, 1602) can be viewed as the origin of this concept. It was judged that a patent could not be obtained with ‘a light difference or invention’. This can be linked to today"s concept of ‘inventive step’. Third, in the theoretical context, Coke"s book, published in 1644, can be viewed as the origin of this concept. Coke explains the meaning of the Monopoly Act of 1624, demanding ‘substantial and essential newness’ apart from novelty as a patent requirement. In addition, the concept of inventiveness is more specified by denying the patentability of the improved invention that may be more easily invented.

기술강제인가, 기술수용인가?

윤권순(Yoon Kwon Soon) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2018 과학기술과 법 Vol.9 No.1

It is a very interesting question in the area of ‘S&T and law’ whether law can help ‘technological innovation’ by forcing development of a certain level of technology until the future time. The idea is based on the belief that the law can lead science and technology. The evolution of emission standards in the United States is worthy of research in that it provides an empirical example for these questions. The United States has enacted atmospheric environmental legislation to control the release of air pollutants harmful to health and property, and to maintain a clean atmosphere. In the process, air pollution emission standards have been devised in various ways, and the provisions of the Act have been evolved by identifying its advantages and disadvantages. There are two main ways to determine pollutant emission standards for air pollution prevention: ‘technology-based standards’ which is based on the currently developed technology and ‘technology-forcing standards’ which sets the standards by predicting the performance of technology to be developed in the future. History shows us that emission standards of automobile source has been changed from the technology base standards(technology-following standards) to the technology-forcing standards. On the other hand, emission standards of stationary sources has been the technology-base standards. This is because technology-forcing standards is effective to induce new technology, however it is difficult to apply where social and economic effect is large in the case of failure of developing target technology. Technological innovation has two aspects: the development of new technologies and the diffusion of developed technologies. echnologyforcing standards can contribute to the former, and technologyfollowing standards can contribute to the latter. Therefore, in order for the law to induce innovation in science and technology, it is necessary to identify the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches and apply them considering the given circumstances.

미국 특허담보제도의 역사적 기원

윤권순 ( Yoon Kwon-soon ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2021 서울대학교 法學 Vol.62 No.4

미국의 특허담보(security interests in patents) 제도는 저당권설정자에게 저당물을 점유하여 사용하게 하면서, 저당물의 등록을 요구하는 부동산 저당(mortgage) 제도를 기반으로 탄생했다. 미국 독립 전에는 토지 등을 저당물로 한 부동산저당제도가 먼저 도입되었고, 17세기 남부 식민지 지역에서 저당물의 대상이 농업과 관련된 ‘동산·노예’로 확대 되었다. 미국 독립 이후인 19세기 북동부 지역에서 섬유산업이 발달하게 되어, 기계의 가치가 높아지게 됨에 따라, 인적재산(동산)을 저당물로 특화한 인적재산(동산) 저당 권법이 제정되었다. 예컨대, 1832년 제정된 매사추세츠 법률(An Act to prevent Fraud in the transfer of Personal Property)은 법률 명칭과 법조문에 ‘chattel(동산)’보다 더 넓은 개념인 인적재산(personal property)이라는 용어를 사용하고 있다. 1793년 개정된 미국 특허법이 특허권을 배타적 재산권(exclusive property)이라고 명시하고 있고, 1845년 뉴욕의 연방지방법원이 이를 인적재산권(personal property)으로 이해했다는 점에서 동 법률은 특허권이 저당권의 대상으로 들어오는 문을 열어 주었다고 할 수 있다. 뉴욕 주 대법원은 1854년 특허를 대상으로 한 저당권설정의 효력을 인정한 판결을 내리게 된다. 한편, 1870년 특허법은 양도와 관련해서 저당권을 언급하지만, 그 유효성은 규정하지 않고 있다. 1891년 연방대법원은 1870년 특허법이 특허권의 양도가 저당권설정계약으로 이루어 질 수 있다는 것을 명확히 했다고 판단하여, 특허저당계약의 유효성을 인정하였다. 이로서 특허 저당제도는 확고한 법적 기반을 마련하게 된다. 결론적으로 미국 특허담보제도는 부동산저당제도가 시대의 흐름에 따라 저당물의 대상으로 경제적 가치가 높아지게 되는 노예, 동산, 기계 등을 흡수하는 흐름 속에서 탄생한 것이라고 할 수 있다. 법제라는 맥락에서는 1830년대 북동부 지역의 인적재산 저당법을 기반으로 하여, 1870년 연방특허법과 1891년 연방대법원 판례에 의해 제도적 틀을 갖추게 된 것이라고 평가할 수 있다. 또한 특허권의 경제적 가치가 극대화된 제2차 산업혁명 돌입 시기에 미국 특허담보제도가 탄생했다는 점에서, 기술혁신과 특허제도는 특허담보제도 탄생을 촉발시켰다고 할 수 있다. The U.S. system of security interests in patents was born on the basis of mortgage in real property that required mortgagee to record the mortgage, allowing mortgagor to occupy and use the collateral. The mortgage in real property with land as a collateral was first introduced, and in the 17th century, the subject of mortgage was expanded to negroes and chattels related to agriculture in the southern colonial region. As the textile industry developed in the northeastern region of the 19th century after the independence of the United States, and the value of machinery increased, the ‘personal property(chattel)’ mortgage law was enacted, specializing in personal property(chattel) as collateral. The Massachusetts Act of 1832(An Act to prevent Fraud in the transfer of Personal Property) uses the term ‘personal property’, a broader concept than ‘chattel’ in the title and provisions. The U.S. Patent Act revised in 1793 defines patent rights as exclusive property, and in 1845 the Federal District Court in New York understood them as personal property. Therefore, it can be argued that the 1832 act opened the door for patent rights to enter the mortgage system. The New York Supreme Court ruled in 1854 that the mortgage in patent was valid. On the other hand, the Patent Act of 1870 refered to mortgage related to assignment of patent, but did not specify its validity. In 1891, the Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of mortgage in patent, interpreting that the Patent Act of 1870 made clear that the assignment of a patent right could be made by a mortgage. Like this, the Patent Act of 1870 and the case of 1891 gave a firm legal foundation for the birth of the patent mortgage system. In conclusion, the U.S. system of security interests in patents was born in the midst of the flow of ‘the mortgage in real property’ system absorbing slaves, chattel and machinery, whose economic value increases with the trend of the times. In the context of legislation, patent mortgage system was institutionalized by the Federal Patent Act of 1870 and the Supreme Court decision of 1891, based on ‘personal property’ mortgage act of the Northeast of the 1830s. It can also be argued that the Industrial Revolution triggered the birth of the patent security system, given that the patent mortgage system was born at the time of the second industrial revolution, in which the economic value of patent rights was maximized.

구텐베르크 활판인쇄기술 발명에 대한 영국사회의 법적 대응 - 영국의 검열법과 저작권법의 역사적 기원 -

윤권순(Yoon Kwon Soon) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2015 과학기술과 법 Vol.6 No.2

The invention of typography had a great impact on human society. It enables the mass production of the book. Analyzing the human response in respect of legal aspects for this breakthrough technology would be helpful for us to tackle legal problem for new technology in the future. First, typography has the great advantage that contributes to the production and diffusion of knowledge. Such positive side was led to the enactment of legislation to facilitate the diffusion of these technologies. On the other hand, because the popularization of publication could threaten the rulers, censorship act would be enacted. The British designed a legal system in conformity with the needs of the times for the invention of the 15th century typography techniques. The publishing industry was successfully established in early stages by enactment of laws having preferential treatment for foreign engineers. After enactment of strong censorship in order to maintain the power of the royal family at the press Controlled side, the Glorious Revolution made it possible to eliminating the censorship laws. This made legal foundation of liberal democracy. It was able to take advantage of the typography technology for the diffusion of knowledge efficiently. In addition, ownership of copyright had changed from the publisher to the author. It was beneficial to the cultural industry. It is necessary to enact the law designed to fit the new technology called electronic publishing.

미국 독성물질통제법(TSCA)의 진화

윤권순(Yoon Kwon soon) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2016 과학기술과 법 Vol.7 No.2

The U.S. s Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 is a pioneering position as a pre - sales control law for industrial chemicals. However, the legislation had been criticized for its ineffectiveness due to the fact that the government had responsibility for proving the risk of injury from products. On the other hand, the European Union enacted REACH Act in 2006, which is a landmark legislation in that it obligates chemical manufacturers to bear responsibility for product safety. Under this background, the United States has amended the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016 after 40 years from its enactment. The revised law still requires the government to bear responsibility for proving the hazards of the product. However, the amendment law was intended to expand the authority of government agencies to secure information on chemical substances in order to obtain chemical hazard information efficiently. The amendments also strengthened the review of existing chemicals to enhance protection of humans and the environment from the risks of chemicals. Looking at the history of the toxicant control law, the transition from post-sale control to pre-sales control or conversion of burden of proof is highlighted. However, the fundamental motive inherent in such a change is the expansion of hazard information of chemical substances. While the types of chemicals used commercially are large, there is a time and capital limit to assessing the hazards of chemicals. As a result, only a small number of toxic chemicals s information are available, and this situation is not likely to be solved easily. One way to address this problem is to quickly share information on the hazards of chemicals in major countries (the US, Europe, Japan, etc.). In addition, a chemical substance that has already been identified in another country as a toxic chemical substance should be considered toxic substances in domestic law. Chemical Hazard Information should be shared with producers, secondary producers using them, and consumers through the Internet. PHMG and PGH, which were used as humidifier disinfectants, were already known to be toxic to foreign countries. Even though domestic chemical producers were aware of this fact, manufacturers who made consumer products using them insisted that they did not know about it. The fact that many people using humidifier disinfectants have been injured has shown that share of hazard information of chemicals is one of the fundamental problem of chemical substance control legislation.