2006년 개정 직무발명제도의 제 문제점 및 재개정방안

정차호(Chaho Jung) 세창출판사 2007 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.48

Based on the presumption that the employee (inventor) contributes about 30% to create the employee invention and the employer contributes about 70%, the co-ownership system upon which the employee and the employer are considered to jointly own the right to get a patent is more logical than the inventorship system upon which the employee is considered to own all of the right to get a patent. Based on the co-ownership system, the employee invention is originally belonged to both the employee and the employer after completion of the employee invention and thereafter following an applicable succession provision, the employee's portion of right is succeeded to the employer. This way of co-ownership system (1) may logically admit the contributions of the employee and the employer and (2) may prevent malicious application or succession by the employee. The amended Employee Invention Act of 2006 prescribes that (1) in a company which does not have an employee invention succession provision, the employee has all of the right to get a patent and the employer has just free non-exclusive right to exploit the invention and further that (2) without the employer's notice of succession within four months after the employee's report, the employee invention is considered to be a free invention. Those provisions are unconstitutional or at least unreasonable by depriving property right of the employer who has contributed about 70% to create the invention. The amended Employee Invention Act of 2006 mandates the employer to notify the employee of succession intent within four months after the employee's report of the invention. However considering that it is empirically very rare for the employer not to succeed the invention, it should be allowed for the employer to has a provision based on which the invention is automatically succeeded to the employer without a separate non-succession notice. This "automatic succession" may reduce workload of the employer and may prevent possibility of a mistake. In addition, the amended Employee Invention Act blocks the possibility of another succession time by prescribing that the succession time is when the employer notify the employee of succession intent. However, based on the "immediate succession" system, the employee invention may be succeeded to the employer when the employee notifies the employer of the invention. Such "immediate succession" system must be allowed to minimize the possibility for a malicious employee to file a patent application himself or to succeed the invention to the third party.

특허출원 공개시기 단축방안 ―현행 18개월 출원공개제도를 16개월 또는 14개월 제도로 변경―

정차호 ( Jung¸ Chaho ) 한국지식재산연구원 2021 지식재산연구 Vol.16 No.3

Article 64 of the Korea Patent Act (2021) prescribes the so-called eighteen (18) month publication system, under which a patent application is being laid open eighteen month after the filing date or the priority date. The eighteen month system was settled by considering (1) the priority period (12 months) required by the Paris Covention, (2) the period to alter priority claim (4 months) or the period to file priority certification document (4 months) and (3) publication preparation period (2 months). Based on the fact that the eighteen month period is too long in the current high speed technology development era and that the sooner the publication is, the more beneficial for technology development, this paper researched a method to shorten the current eighteen month period to sixteen or even fourteen month period. This research has made the following results. Firstly, because patent administration in the Korean Intellectual Property Office has been almost 100% automated, publication preparation period need to be only one day. Therefore sixteen month publication is easily possible. Secondly, there is no inevitable reason why alteration of priority claim or filing of priority certification document shall be submitted before publication. In other words, as a claim can be amended after publication, a priority claim can be amended after publication. Because anyone can inspect the file wrapper, the amended content is deemed publicly noticed real time. In that respect, without waiting all sixteen months, we can operate a so-called fourteen month system. Because of the period of fourteen months to submit claim(s) and translated document, it is not possible to further shorten the fourteen months. This paper proclaims that for a faster-paced technology development, we shall introduce a sixteen month publication system or even preferably a fourteen month publication system.

제법한정물건(PbP) 청구항의 해석

정차호(Chaho JUNG) 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2023 성균관법학 Vol.35 No.1

제법한정물건(product-by-process) 청구항(PbP 청구항)의 해석과 관련하여 다양한 의견이 존재하였다. 그러한 이견을 해결하기 위해 대법원이 2011후927 편광필름 전원합의체 판결을 선고하였으나, 그 판결이 사용한 표현의 모호함으로 인해 다양한 의견이 여전히 남게 되었다. 그 2011후927 판결 후 대법원은 2013후1726 쑥추출물 판결, 2013후631 갭 서포터 판결을 선고하였고, 최근에는 2020후11059 직타법 정제 판결을 선고하였다. 이 글은 그 4개 판결을 종합적으로 분석하였고, 그 분석의 결과로 그 4개 판결의 총합이 말하는 법리를 다음과 같이 정리한다. 첫째, 어떤 청구항이 PbP 청구항이라는 이유만으로 바로 특허법 제42조 제4항 제2호가 규정하는 명확성 요건 위배로 처리되지는 않는다. 그러한 해석이 특허법 제42조 제6항의 입법취지와 부합하는 것이라고 생각된다. 둘째, 대법원은 진정 PbP 청구항과 부진정 PbP 청구항을 구별하는 법리를 운용하지 않는다. 그 대신 발명의 실체를 파악한 후, 그 실체에 따라 물건자체설 또는 제법한정설을 적용할 수 있다. 셋째, PbP 청구항의 ‘특허성’ 판단에서도 제조방법의 물건에 대한 영향을 고려하는 것이 대법원의 입장이다. 기존의 이해는 특허성 판단에서는 발명의 실체와 무관하게 물건자체설을 적용한다는 것이었으나, (2013후631 갭 서포터 판결 및) 대상 2020후11059 직타법 정제 판결로 인하여 제조방법(대상 사건에서는 직타법)이 특허성 판단에 영향을 끼침을 알게 되었다. 즉, 해당 발명의 실체가 제조방법인 경우 제법한정설이 적용되어야 하고, 해당 발명의 실체가 물건인 경우 물건자체설이 적용되어야 하는 것이다. 넷째, ‘권리범위’ 판단에서도 제조방법의 물건에 대한 영향에 따라 PbP 청구항이 해석되어야 한다. 즉, 해당 발명의 실체가 제조방법인 경우 제법한정설이 적용되어야 하고, 해당 발명의 실체가 물건인 경우 물건자체설이 적용되어야 하는 것이다. There have been various opinions on interpretation of a product-by-process claim (hereinafter “PbP claim”). To resolve such conflicting opinions, the Korea Supreme Court (hereinafter “KSC”) handed down the 2011 Hu 927 en banc decision. However due to ambiguity of the expressions taken by the decision, there still remain various opinions. After the 2011 Hu 927 decision, KSC made 2013 Hu 1726 mugwort extract decision, 2013 Hu 631 gap supporter decision, and recently 2020 Hu 11059 hitting-method tablet decision. This paper has comprehensively analyzed the four decisions, and as a result of such analysis, summarizes overall jurisprudence of the four decisions as the followings. Firstly, a claim is not rejected under section 42(4)(2) clarity requirement only because it is a PbP claim. Such an analysis is corresponding with legislative intent of section 42(6) of the Patent Act. Secondly, KSC does not distinguish a pure PbP claim from a non-pure PbP claim. After understanding true nature of the invention at issue, based on the true nature, product-itself theory or manufacturing-process-limitation theory would be applied. Thirdly, it is KSC’s position to consider manufacturing process’s effect on the product in determining patentability. Old majority understanding was to apply product-itself theory in determining patentability, regardless of invention’s true nature. However thanks to 2013 Hu 631 gap supporter decision and 2020 Hu 11059 hitting-method tablet decision, we have recognized that manufacturing process (hitting method in the case at issue) affects patentability determination. In other words, if true nature of the invention at issue is manufacturing process, manufacturing-process-limitation theory shall be applied and if true nature of the invention at issue is the product, product-itself theory shall be applied. Fourthly, in determining right scope, effect of manufacturing process on the product shall be considered. In other words, if true nature of the invention at issue is manufacturing process, manufacturing-process-limitation theory shall be applied and if true nature of the invention at issue is the product, product-itself theory shall be applied.

특허권 간접침해 성립의 직접침해의 전제 여부

정차호(Chaho JUNG) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2014 성균관법학 Vol.26 No.3

특허권 간접침해가 성립되기 위해서는 직접침해의 존재가 전제되어야 한다는 종속설 및 전제될 필요가 없다는 독립설이 있다. 이 글은 다음과 같은 이유로 독립설이 타당하지 않음을 밝혔다. 첫째, 독립설이 타당하지 않은 4개의 사례를 제시하였다. 둘째, 종속설이 우리 형법 및 민법의 이론과 상응한다. 셋째, 독립설이 통설이라는 오해에도 불구하고, 주어진 상황에 맞게 종속설 또는 독립설을 유연하게 적용하여야 한다는 주장이 최근 강력하게 대두되었다. 그러나, 현행 법리에 의하면 소비자의 비상업적 행위는 침해가 아니므로, 소비자의 비상업적 행위를 돕는 행위에도 종속설을 적용하게 되면 관련 특허권이 무력해지는 상황이 발생할 수 있다. 그러한 경우에는 독립설이 적용되는 것이 타당하다. 그런데, 종속설이 형법 및 민법의 법리와 조화되는 것이므로 그러한 경우에도 종속설이 적용되게 하는 것이 바람직한 면이 있다. 그래서, 이 글은 소비자의 비상업적 행위를 돕는 행위를 종속설 아래에서 간접침해로 포섭하는 방안을 제시하였다. 즉, 직접침해를 정의하는 규정을 신설하여 비상업적 행위도 직접침해로 포섭하고, 현행 간접침해 규정을 개정하여 간접침해가 직접침해를 전제로 함을 명확하게 하고, 특허권의 효력이 미치지 않는 경우에 ‘비상업적 실시’를 포함시켰다. Regarding the relationship between patent direct infringement and indirect infringement, the “dependence doctrine” demands pre-existence of direct infringement to find indirect infringement and the “independence doctrine” allows indirect infringement regardless of direct infringement. This paper proclaims the dependence doctrine as a proper one based on the following reasons: first, there are at least four situations where the independence doctrine is not proper; second, under the civil law and criminal law jurisprudence, an act to help a legal act must be considered legal and without a principal there could be no accessory; third, nowadays a few high-profile commentators claim the dependence doctrine. However, there is a situation where the independence doctrine is proper: an act which supplies relevant parts to a consumer who is non-commercially working the patented invention. It should be noted that, under current Korean law, a non-commercial working is not regarded as direct infringement. In that situation, to properly protect a patent right, the supplier’s commercial act must be interpreted as indirect infringement. To prevent such supplier from indirectly infringing a patent right and further to adopt dependence doctrine, this paper suggests to amend relevant provisions of the Patent Act as the followings. First, it is strongly recommended to add a new provision which may define direct infringement: an act working the patented invention during patent term in the territory of the Republic of Korea without authority. The definition does not include the limitation “as a business.” Therefore a non-commercial act may be treated as an infringement. Second, to prevent non-commercial private consumers from being sued by the patentee, a new provision may be added, which exempts such non-commercial acts from the effect of a patent right. Under the two new provisions, it would be possible to adopt the dependence doctrine as a basic principle on the relationship between direct and indirect infringements.

특허무효심판 청구인 적격 - ‘이해관계인’에서 ‘누구든지’로 확대 방안 -

정차호(Chaho JUNG),양성미(Sheng Mei LIANG) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2014 성균관법학 Vol.26 No.4

현행 특허법 제133조 제1항은 특허무효심판의 청구인을 “이해관계인 또는 심사관”으로 제한하고 있다. 특허무효심판은 행정심판의 한 종류라고 할 수 있고 행정심판 및 나아가 행정소송은 민사소송법의 법리에 따라 진행된다. 민사소송법의 법리가 소송의 원고가 소의 ‘이익’을 가질 것을 요구하므로, 특허심판의 청구인도 동심판에 대하여 이해관계를 가져야 할 것이 당연해 보인다. 그러나, 미국, 일본, 중국, 대만, 유럽특허청, 영국 등은 ‘누구든지’ 특허무효심판을 청구할 수 있도록 허용한다. 마땅히 무효 되어야 할 특허에 대하여 누구든지 무효심판을 청구할 수 있는 것이 공익에 부합할 것이므로 그 나라들은 이해관계의 존재를 요구하지 않는다. 이 글은 특허무효심판의 청구인을 ‘누구든지’로 확대하는 방안을 전제로 주요국의 법리를 검토하였고, 그와 관련되는 쟁점에 대하여 다음과 같은 제안을 한다. 첫째, 특허권자의 청구인 적격은 부정되어야 한다. 둘째, 명의를 빌린 청구를 인정하여야 한다. 셋째, 실시권자의 청구인 적격은 인정되어야 한다. 넷째, 심사관에 의한 청구를 인정하여야 한다. 다섯째, 모인출원 또는 비공동출원으로부터 비롯되는 특허에 대하여는 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가진 자만이 청구인 적격을 가져야 한다. Article 133(1) of the current Korean Patent Act limits the requester for a patent invalidation trial as “an interested person or an examiner.”The patent invalidation trial is a type of administrative trial, and an administrative trial, and furthermore, an administrative litigation is based on the legal principle of the Korean Civil Procedures Act. The legal principle of the Civil Procedures Act requires the plaintiff of a litigation to have the interest of the litigation, so it seems to be natural that the requester of a patent invalidation trial shall have interest in the same trial. However, in the U.S., Japan, China, Taiwan, European Patent Office, Britain, etc., ‘any person’ is permitted to request for a patent invalidation trial. Any person being able to request for a patent invalidation trial against a patent which should be invalidated will correspond to the common good, so those countries do not demand the “interested person” requirement. This study reviewed the legal principles of major countries with a plan to expand the requester of a patent invalidation trial to ‘any person’, and accordingly the following conclusions were derived. First, the standing of the patentee as the requester shall be denied. Second, the request with borrowed name shall be accepted. Third, the licensee’s standing as requester shall be accepted. Fourth, a request by an examiner shall be accepted. Fifth, for the patents registered by certain person or non-joint application, only the person who has the right to receive the patent has the standing as a requester.

한미조세협약에 따라 국내원천소득이 되는 특허사용료(royalty)의 산정에서의 실질과세원칙의 구현 : Microsoft-삼성 사건을 중심으로

정차호(Chaho JUNG),최승재(Sung Jai CHOI) 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2021 성균관법학 Vol.33 No.4

우리 기업이 미국 기업의 특허발명을 사용하며, 그 사용에 대해 사용료(royalty)를 지급하는 경우, 그 사용료가 국내원천소득인지 여부가 문제 된다. 그 쟁점에 대해 한미조세협약 제6조는 우리나라 내의 특허의 사용에 대한 사용료만 국내원천소득인 것으로 규정한다. 그 규정의 해석과 관련하여 대법원은 여러 사건에서 우리나라에 등록되지 않은 특허의 사용에 대한 사용료는 국내원천소득이 아닌 것으로 판단하여 왔다. 대상 Microsoft-삼성 사건에서도 하급심 법원이 같은 법리를 적용하여 Microsoft가 보유하는 전체특허 중 우리나라에 등록된 특허의 비율이 약 3%이므로 전체 사용료 중 약 3%만이 국내원천소득이라고 판단하였다. 이 글은 대상 사안에서 실질과세원칙을 구현하기 위해서 삼성에 의해 실제로 사용되지 않은 특허, 소위 ‘무관특허’를 산정에서 제외해야 하는 점 및 한국특허와 동일한 발명을 가진 ‘중복특허’도 제외해야 하는 점을 주장한다. 그리고, 삼성이 Microsoft가 보유하는 한국특허만을 사용하여도 대상 제품을 생산할 수 있다고 추정할 수 있고 Microsoft는 한국특허 외에 추가로 필요한 특허를 증명할 수 있을 것이다. 그러한 법리를 적용하게 하기 위해 대법원은 대상 사건을 파기, 환송하여 하급심 법원에서 한국특허 외에 추가로 필요한 특허의 수를 심리하게 하여야 한다. In a case where a Korean company pays royalty to an American company for use of a patented invention, an issue could be raised whether the royalty is domestic source income or not. On the issue, Article 6 of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty prescribes that only the royalty for use of Korean patents is domestic source income. Regarding interpretation of the provision, the Korean Supreme Court, in many cases, has consistently decided that the royalty for use of non-Korean patents is not domestic source income. In the Microsoft-Samsung case at issue, lower courts applied the same jurisprudence and found that rate of Korean patents among all Microsoft patents is about 3%, therefore about 3% of all royalty is domestic source income. This paper, to apply the substance-over-form taxation principle, argues that (1) “unrelated patents” (not actually used by Samsung) shall be excluded in such calculation and (2) “redundant patents” (non-Korean patents having the same invention as to Korean patents) shall also be excluded in such calculation. In addition, it could be presumed that Samsung can manufacture the products at issue by using only Microsoft’s Korean patents and Microsoft can prove that Microsoft’s non-Korean patents are also necessary for the manufacture. To make a lower court apply this jurisprudence, the Supreme Court should reverse the lower court judgment and remit the case to the lower court, which may examine number of additionally necessary non-Korean patents.

특허무효심판 심결에 대한 심결취소소송에서의 특허청장의 역할

정차호(Chaho JUNG),양성미(Sheng Mei LIANG) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2015 성균관법학 Vol.27 No.2

This paper discusses role of the Commissioner of the Patent Office in a trial revocation litigation appealed from a decision entered by a patent invalidation trial. In doing so, jurisprudence of four countries, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and the United States are being comparatively analyzed. Section 180bis of the Japanese Patent Act permits either active or passive role of the Commissioner of the Patent Office to give his opinions in a trial revocation litigation of the IP High Court. Section 76 of the German Patent Act permits an active role of the President of the Patent Office to give his opinions in an appeal proceeding of the Patent Court. Section 77 of the German Patent Act also permits the President to be a party of an appeal proceeding. Section 17 of the Taiwanese IP Case Adjudication Act prescribes that a court may order the Commissioner of the Patent Office to intervene in a patent infringement litigation. In that case the Commissioner must choose a party for whom he supports, but he is neither a party or a intervener. Section 143 of the U.S. Patent Act admits the Director’s right to intervene in an appeal from a decision entered from inter partes review, etc. After comparatively analyzing jurisprudence of such four countries, this paper suggests the followings amendment proposals to the Korea Patent Act. First, the court may order the Commissioner to present his opinions. To make this process possible, it is necessary to make a new provision in the Patent Act. Second, the Commissioner, upon his own decision and the court’s permission, may present in a court and give his opinions. Again a new provision is necessary. In the above two procedures, the Commissioner’s opinion may cover not only technical matters but also legal matters. Third, the Commissioner, upon his own decision and the court’s permission, may intervene in a trial revocation litigation before the Patent Court. However, considering a special administrative character of a trial revocation litigation, the Commissioner does not have to choose a party whom he supports but can independently give his opinions on an issue-by-issue basis. The most important purpose of this intervention of the Commissioner is to give him the right to appeal. With such right, he may keep arguing invalidity of a patent, which, without such intervention, may survive through an improper settlement of the case by two parties. 특허무효심판에서 특허심판원의 심판관 합의체가 청구인과 피청구인의 주장, 증명을 들은 후 심결을 하게 된다. 그 후 그 심결에 대한 심결취소소송에서는 특허심판원은 개입을 하지 않게 되고 양 당사자만이 다투게 된다. 그 장면에서 양 당사자가 합의를 하여 사건을 종결하게 되는 경우 마땅히 무효되어야 할 특허가 무효되지 않을 수도 있다. 그러한 바람직하지 않은 상황을 방지할 필요가 있다. 또, 중요한 특허법적 쟁점에 대하여 특허청장이 그의 의견을 법원에 제시할 필요가 있다. 즉, 심결취소소송에 특허청장이 개입할 필요성이 인정된다. 또, 미국, 영국, 대만 등과 같이 특허권 침해소송 법원이 특허무효를 판단할 수 있게 되면 그 장면에서도 특허청장이 개입할 필요성이 제기된다. 그러한 필요성에 따라 일본 특허법 제180조의2, 독일 특허법 제76조 및 제77조, 대만 지식재산사건심리법 제17조, 미국 특허법 제143조는 관련 소송에서의 특허청장의 적극적인 역할을 규정하고 있다. 이 글은 위 네 개 국가의 법리를 비교법적으로 분석하였고, 그러한 분석의 결과로 다음과 같은 제안을 한다. 첫째, 법원은 필요하다고 판단하는 경우 법적 해석 등에 관하여 특허청장이 의견을 제시하도록 명령할 수 있어야 한다. 둘째, 특허청장은 필요하다고 판단하는 경우 법적 해석 등에 관하여 의견을 진술할 수 있어야 한다. 셋째, 특허청장은 필요하다고 판단하는 경우 해당 소송에 보조참가인으로 참가할 수 있어야 한다. 중요한 것은 특허청장이 보조참가인으로 참가하더라도, 심결취소소송의 특별한 성격을 감안하여 특허청장은 모든 사안에 대하여 어느 한 당사자와 동일한 입장을 가질 필요는 없고 쟁점별로 독립적 입장을 가질 수 있어야 한다. 이러한 방안을 가능하게 하는 규정이 특허법에 신설될 수 있을 것이다.

특허성 판단 관련 사후고찰 및 역교시 사례연구

정차호(Chaho JUNG) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2012 성균관법학 Vol.24 No.4

A person who decides patentability of an invention must essentially and beforehand understand the invention. However, unfortunately, after the understanding, the decider cannot be free from hindsight bias. A proclaim against the decider that such hindsight is not allowed normally does not make an effective result. This paper investigates real cases where an applicant or a patentee showed objective evidences and patentability was admitted. Through such case study, we may learn the way to proclaim hindsight and hopefully may utilize the way in future similar cases. Investigating eight real cases, this paper concludes that: (1) various explicit, negative expressions can be basis of hindsight proclaims, (2) implicit expressions or conventional wisdom of prior art, etc. can also be basis of hindsight proclaims, (3) proclaim of hindsight can be applied in novelty determinations as well, and (4) a prior art must not be altered in novelty determinations. If an applicant or a patentee provides such evidence of hindsight or teaching-away, relevant inventions must be presumed to have patentability.

주지관용기술을 적용한 발명의 진보성 판단

정차호(Jung, Chaho) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2013 성균관법학 Vol.25 No.3

This paper, after analyzing theories of the U.S.A., Europe and the Republic of Korea, defines well-known knowledge or common general knowledge as a technology generally known and accepted without question to the skilled person in the relevant art. Generally, a knowledge described in several textbooks could be accepted as a common general knowledge. However, a knowledge described in one or a few patent specifications hardly be accepted as common general knowledge. A knowledge which was generally known and accepted without question even to laypersons can be introduced without a proving evidence. Even over contrary contentions, the Examiner can decide based on the common general knowledge. Furthermore, a knowledge which was generally known and accepted without question to the skilled person in the art can be introduced without a proving evidence. However, in this instance, if there is a contrary contention, the person who rely on the common general knowledge shall introduce a supporting evidence, regardless whether the procedure is before the Patent Office, the Board or the Court.

간행물의 반포시기 결정에 관한 연구

정차호 ( Jung Chaho ) 한국지식재산연구원 2004 지식재산논단 Vol.1 No.1

This article relates to Article 29(1)(2) of the Korean Patent Act which prescribes the prior art disclosed through printed publication or electric telecommunication line. The meaning of the printed publication and electric telecommunication line is discussed and furthermore the standard to determine distribution time is being studied. It has been claimed that (1) printed publication must not always be duplicated, (2) it must not always be made for the purpose of lay-open, and (3) touchable or hearable information media as well as visible media can be the printed publication. To be consistent with the currently-discussed draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) which defines prior art as any information available anywhere in the world before the filing date or priority date, it is recommended to amend Article 29(1)(1) of the Korean Patent Act to include the information available out of Korea as publicly known or publicly used information. Article 1bis(1) of the Presidential Decree under the Korean Patent Act limits the credible electric telecommunication lines. However, the prescribed telecommunication lines are not the only credible ones and those are not always guaranteed to be credible. Therefore, examples of credible telecommunication lines shall not be prescribed beforehand but those must be judged case-by-case by examiners, trial examiners or judges considering circumstances. The distribution time of the printed publication or electric telecommunication line must be determined by the public availability standard. When a thesis is being registered and shelved in a library, the lay-open time is not necessarily registration time or shelving time. The lay-open time must be determined considering relevant circumstantial factors. Normally when a thesis is registered in the library computer data base and the public can access the information without undue troubles, it is available to the public.