특허청구범위의 ‘실질적 변경’ 관련 해석론 및 입법론

정차호(Jung Cha Ho),윤기승(Yoon Gi Seung) 한국정보법학회 2009 정보법학 Vol.13 No.2

특허청구범위의 실질적 변경과 관련된 해석론으로, 본 고는 (1) 실질적 변경 대비의 대상은 특허청구범위만이며, 명세서 등은 참고될 뿐이고, (2) 같은 번호를 가진 청구항만을 대비하는 것이 아니라 다른 번호를 가진 청구항도 대비되어야 하고, (3) 실질 적 변경과는 별도로 신규사항추가 여부가 판단되어야 하며, (4) 내적 한정의 범위 감축 중 선택발명의 경우 실질적 변경이 있을 수 있고, (5) 내적 한정과 외적 부가는 달리 취급되는 것이 아니라 새로운 목적 또는 효과라는 동일한 기준으로 판단되어야 하며, (6) 실질적 변경 판단의 방법과 진보성 판단의 방법이 매우 유사하다는 점을 설명하였다. 특허청구범위의 실질적 변경과 관련된 입법론으로, 본 고는 ① 실질적 변경 여부의 판단이 너무 어려워서 소모적인 논쟁 및 심결에의 불신 및 불복을 유도한다는 점, ②실질적 변경 요건이 제3자를 보호하기 위한 것이라는 주장이 허구이며, 실질적 변경요건을 삭제하여도 제3자가 피해를 보는 일은 없다는 점, ③ 실질적 변경 요건을 일본 외 다른 국가에서는 채용하고 있지 않으므로 국제적 조화를 이룰 필요가 있다는 점에근거하여 정정에서도 실질적 변경 요건을 삭제하여야 한다고 주장한다. 나아가, 그러한 기회에 정정제도를 총체적으로 개선할 필요가 있으며, 이를 위해 정정심판과 무효심판의 관계 재정립 등 정정제도 전체에 대한 연구가 필요하다고 보았다. As analytic theories regarding substantive change of a patent claim, this paper explains: (1) an object of comparison whether there is substantive change is only claims and other parts of specification is only referred, (2) not only the claim with the same number but also other claims shall be compared, (3) the issue whether new matter has been added shall be separately decided from the substantive change issue, (4) a selection invention which is a type of inward limitations may cause substantive change, (5) an inward limitation and an outward addition shall not be differently treated but be decided under the same criteria, which is new objective and effect, and (6) the methodology for substantive change decision and that for inventive step decision are very similar to each other. As legislative proposals regarding substantive change of a patent claim, this paper proclaims the substantive change requirement had better be deleted during a correction procedure under following reasons: (1) a decision on substantive change is such difficult to induce continuous debates and disbelief and appeals against a trial decision, (2) the argument that the substantive change requirement is necessary to protect the third party is baseless and deletion of the requirement does not cause any harm to the third party, and (3) the substantive change requirement is not applied by other countries except only Japan and the requirement had better be deleted for harmonization of international patent system.

특허권 침해 손해배상액의 선택산정 및 혼합산정 법리

정차호(Jung, Cha Ho),장태미(Jang, Tae Mi) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학연구 Vol.55 No.2

이 글은 특허권 침해에 대한 손해배상액 산정에 있어서, 특허권자 실제 손해에 상응하는 침해품에 대하여는 일실이익 또는 침해자 이익에 의하여 산정을 하고 나머지 침해품에 대하여는 실시료 상당액에 의하여 산정할 수 있는지 여부를 검토한다. 이 글은 그렇게 두 가지 방법을 같이 사용하여 손해배상액을 산정하는 방식을 혼합산정(mixed calculation)이라 칭한다. 대상 쟁점을 해결하기 위하여 이 글은 미국, 일본, 중국 및 유럽의 관련 법리를 비교법적으로 분석하였고, 그에 따라 미국 및 일본에서는 혼합산정을 인정하나, 유럽에서는 선택산정만을, 중국에서는 실시료의 증액제도와 함께 선택산정을 인정하고 있다는 점을 파악하였다. 그러한 이해에 기초하여 이 글은 첫째, 침해자에게 이익이 되는 상황을 방지하고 특허권자를 두텁게 보호하기 위하여 혼합산정 법리를 정식으로 인정하여야 한다고 주장하며, 둘째, 특허권자의 실시능력과 그 외 판매할 수 없는 사정을 구분하지 않고 혼합산정을 인정하여야 함을 주장하며, 셋째, 특허법 제128조 제1항의 문구를 명확하고 간결하게 수정하며, 위의 두 사항을 조문에 반영하도록 개정하여야 한다. This paper, in the case of patent damages calculation, examines whether the infringing products corresponding to the patentee’s real loss may be calculated under lost profit theory or infringer’s profit theory and then the remaining infringing products may be calculated under reasonable royalty theory. This paper coins as “mixed calculation” for the calculation method which utilizes two theories (lost profit plus reasonable royalty or infringer’s profit plus reasonable royalty). In order to solve the given issue, this paper comparatively analyzes relevant jurisprudence of the U.S.A., Japan, China and Europe, and under such analysis, finds that the U.S.A. and Japan permit mixed calculations, Europe allows only selective calculation, China, allowing only selective calculation, permits enhancement of calculated reasonable royalty. Based on such understanding, this paper proposes that: (1) to prevent excessive profit to the infringer and to fairly protect the patent right, mixed calculation must be allowed, (2) mixed calculation must be allowed without differentiating the patentee’s capacity from other reasons from which the patentee could not sell patented products, and (3) to specify said two points and to make Article 128(1) of the Korea Patent Act clearer and more concise, the provision must be amended.

특허청의 착오로 잘못 등록된 PCT 자기지정 특허의 유효 여부

정차호(Jung, Cha Ho),강현호(Kang, Hyun Ho) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2008 성균관법학 Vol.20 No.3S

The holding of the Supreme Court case in question clarifies that an earlier application under PCT self-designation is considered to be withdrawn 15 months after its filing date. According to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, there were 177 cases, mistakenly registered, notwithstanding the withdrawal consideration, by examiners who overlooked such withdrawals. This article tries to find a ground to invalidate or revoke such an illegal registration under either patent law or administrative law. A patent act provision presents an exclusive list of reasons under which an illegally-registered patent can be invalidated, and the list does not have any ground to invalidate a PCT self-designation patent. Under the administrative law theory, illegal administrative activity can be nullified ex officio or by a litigation raised by the third party. However, such nullification could be limited by the purpose to protect interest of the relevant person who trusted the administrative activity. Under the trust protection principle, which was consistently applied by the Supreme Court, in the case of PCT self-designation patent, two relevant interests (harms) will be compared: one to the patentee caused by invalidation of the patent and the other to the third party caused by existence of the patent. Even though such comparison may be case-by-case decided, in many cases, PCT self-designation patent could be validly maintained under the trust protection principle, notwithstanding the ground of revocation.

특허권의 소멸과 실시료 지불의무와의 관계

정차호(Jung Cha Ho) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2007 성균관법학 Vol.19 No.2

  Patent license agreement is a very difficult task which requires thorough understanding of relevant technology, patent law and contract law. An agreement drafter must try to minimize possibility of future disputes by prescribing all possible issues. Especially. when two parties agree to pay royalty over than the patent term, they must clarify underlying issues to prevent future disputes.<BR>  With regard to the issue whether licensee must pay royalty after expiration of relevant patent term, before 1960, many U.S. cases held that such provision is enforceable based on the principle of contract freedom. However, after 1960. those provisions are considered to be unenforceable. In this case, licensee is still required to pay the royalty corresponding to the term before the patent term expiration.<BR>  Based on said understanding, licensee may demand a provision which deducts royalty rate if a patent among several patents is being held invalid or being expired. Making a package license agreement based on several patents. licensor must not force such agreement and also give licensee an option not to include one or more patents. Licensee may further demand that, if some claims of a patent are being held invalid but the others are being valid, royalty rate should be deducted as well.

영업비밀보호를 위한 경업금지와 직무발명자에 대한 정당한 보상의 관계

정차호(Jung, Cha Ho),문선영(Moon, Sun Young) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2009 성균관법학 Vol.21 No.2

Trade secrets can be classified into two categories: technical information and managemental information. Because a trade secret as technical information normally could be an employee invention, if a company enjoys profit due to such an employee invention (trade secret), regardless of patent application filing, the company should pay reasonable compensation (corresponding to said profit) to the trade secret creator (inventor) under Articles 15 and 16 of the Invention Promotion Act. Such compensation must be continuous as far as the company keeps enjoying profit, regardless of the employee's retirement. To prevent an ex-employee from competing against the company, it may proclaim that she will inevitably disclose or exploit its trade secret. In other words, the relevant trade secret provides the company with any kind of economic profit and the competition causes damages to the profit. In that sense, we can deduce such a conclusion that the company should pay reasonable compensation (corresponding to said profit) to her (trade secret creator, inventor). If the company has not payed such compensation, the non-payment is a good evidence that the trade secret has not provided the company with profit and there is no legal basis for the company to file a non-competition suit. If the company files a non-competition suit admitting that there should have been compensation, it should pay reasonable compensation against so-far profit and should keep paying compensation as far as it keeps enjoying profit from the trade secret. If amount of the compensation is nominal, the court may not approve requested non-competition. If relevant trade secret must be protected at the sacrifice of freedom of occupation, exchange of information and free competition, it should provide the company with more than certain amount of profit. Therefore, we can conclude that, filing a non-competition suit, a company should be prepared for paying considerable compensation. So far a company has nothing to lose upon filing a non-competition suit, in that sense, such a suit could have been misused. Such misuse may deter freedom of occupation, exchange of information and free competition. It may restrain misuse of a non-competition suit to consider reasonable compensation on a trader secret with regard to the non-competition suit. It is highly recommended that upon deciding reasonableness of a non-competition agreement, the court consider existence of reasonable compensation as well as the value of trade secret protection and freedom of occupation.

제법한정물건 청구항 (product-by -process claim) 의 해석에 관한 새로운 제안

정차호(Jung, Cha ho),신혜은(Shin, Hye Eun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2010 성균관법학 Vol.22 No.1

This paper summarizes that, during prosecution, in researched four countries, the U.S.A., Japan, Europe and Korea, a product-by-process claim is being interpreted as the product itself without considering the relevant process. Furtherrnore, this paper summarizes that, after issuance, the interpretational methodology of a product-by-process claim has not been settled, being distant from being an indisputable law. We, authors, proclaim that (1) a c1aim must be interpreted based on what was invented, disclosed and claimed by the inventor (applicant), and therefore (2) a product-by-process c1aim whose essence is the process must be interpreted considering the c1aimed process and (3) a product-by-process claim whose essence is the product itself must be interpreted without considering the relevant process. This paper further proclaims that a product-by-process claim must be consistently interpreted regardless of its stage, before or after the issuance. To so proclaim, this paper has found that unrestricted application of the broadest reasonable interpretation rule to a product-by-process claim is not corresponding to what the applicant invented, disclosed and claimed.

특허권 및 전용실시권의 개념 재정립

정차호(Jung, Cha-Ho) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2010 성균관법학 Vol.22 No.3

On the question whether, under the current Korean patent law, a patent right contains a self-exploitation right as well as an exclusive right, this paper negatively answers on following reasons: (1) the Patent Act cannot bestow the inventor applicant with the self-exploitation right which was originally and already his/her right under the natural right theory, (2) TRIPs Agreement Art. 28 prescribes patent right as an exclusive right, (3) other countries, such as the U.S.A. and China, clearly explain so and (4) especially the European Patent Office clearly explains that it is a common misconception that a patent gives its owner the right to make use of his invention. Based on such reasons, this paper strongly proclaims that relevant articles of the Korean Patent Act, such as articles 94, 98, 100, 102, be accordingly amended. If the patent right is a mere exclusive right without self-exploitation right, the right of an exclusive licensee must be within such patent right. Then, to answer the concept of an exclusive license right, this paper further comparatively analyzes laws of the U.S.A., France, Germany and the U.K. Based such study, it could be concluded that (1) the U.S.A. determines exclusive license right not based on the face name of a license agreement but based on assignment of all substantial rights, (2) France puts the exclusive license slightly under the patent right, (3) Germany does over the patent right and (4) the U.K. positions an exclusive license right as the same as the patent right. Current Korean Patent Act seems to follow the U.K. style, considering that many provisions put "or exclusive licensee" after "patentee". If the Korean Patent Act positions the exclusive license right as the same as the patent right, an exclusive licensee may be considered to have the same right as a co-owner of the patent right. Then, determining whether an exclusive licensee alone has standng for a lawsuit, we can look whether a co-owner alone has standing in the same situation. Unfortunately, however, current Korean law is not clear on the standing of a co-owner alone. Therefore, to determine standing of an exclusive licensee, we must wait until the standing issue of a co-owner be resolved.

특허성 관련 특허법 제29조 본문, 제1항 및 제2항 개정방안

정차호(Jung, Cha-Ho) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2011 성균관법학 Vol.23 No.3

This paper suggests modifications on the Art. 29 of the Korean Patent Act, which prescribes major patentability requirements, such as inventiveness, novelty, prior art, inventive step, industrial applicability. Through the modifications, hopefully will be achieved are: ① harmonization of Korean patent jurisprudence with international treaties and those of other major countries, ② streamlining of Korean patent system for the benefit of users, and ③ elimination of some ambiguous aspects of the article. After comparatively studying corresponding provisions of the U.S.A., Japan, China, Europe, PCT and draft of SPLT, this paper suggests as follows: 1. Prior art will be “any information in the world available to the public before the priority date”; 2. Priority date will be “the actual filing date, or, if any effective priority claim, the earliest filing date of earlier applications”; 3. PHOSITA will mean “a person having ordinary skill at the time of the priority date in the relevant technology field”; 4. Art. 29 will be divided into four subprovisions, each of which will prescribes inventiveness, industrial applicability, novelty and inventive step, respectively; 5. Inventive step (following the provision of draft SPLT) will be acknowledged if the invention cannot be easily substituted, combined or modified from the prior art; and 6. In accordance with above-mentioned suggestions, a few other provisions, such as Arts. 30 and 32, will be correspondingly amended. Art. 29 of the Korean Patent Act is the utmost important provision from the practical viewpoint. Notwithstanding, there has been need for substantive and procedural improvements. If the article is amended as suggested above, clarification, harmonization and streamlining will be the expected benefits.

특허유효추정원칙

정차호(Jung, Cha-Ho),황성필(Hwang, Sung-Phill) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2011 성균관법학 Vol.23 No.3

The U.S. Patent Act provides that “[a] patent shall be presumed valid” and that “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.” 35 U.S.C. § 282. However the provision is silent on whether the asserting party shall prove invalidity by “clear and convincing evidence” or by “preponderance evidence”. This paper analyzes Microsoft v. i4i case, which dealt with the choice between the two rules. In the case, two parties argued four main issues: (1) case law; (2) legislative intent of the Congress; (3) need for deference on expertise of the examiner; and (4) protection of trust interest of a patentee. The U.S. Supreme Court held: (1) precedents preferred clear and convincing evidence rule regardless of whether or not the prior art was considered by the examiner, (2) the Congress chose clear and convincing evidence rule through the 1952 amendment, (3) even though there is doubt on the quality of examinations, the expertise of examiner still must be deferred, and (4) considering the investment made by the patentee, the trust interest of the patentee better be protected. Microsoft v. i4i decision supports clear and convincing evidence rule and further supports patent effectiveness and patentee’s trust interest, thereby consequently enhancing strength of patent right. In 2011 in Korea, the patentees’ winning rate in patent litigations is too low. Some statistics indicates the winning rate between 20% and 26%. Considering such situation, it is claimed that the U.S. clear and convincing evidence rule may be imported to the Korean patent jurisprudence. It is authors’ hope that this paper may give some guidance in such importation.

특허소송의 관할집중

정차호(Cha ho Jung) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2016 성균관법학 Vol.28 No.4

민사소송법 제24조 및 법원조직법 제28조의 개정에 따라 ‘특허권에 관한’ 소송은 1심 차원에서는 5개 지방법원만이, 2심 차원에서는 특허법원만이 전속관할하게 되었다. 그러한 관할집중 제도로 인하여 향후 어떤 사건이 관할집중의 대상인지, 즉 특허권에 관한 사건인지 여부의 판단이 매우 중요하게 되었다. 이 글은 ‘특허권에 관한’의 문언적 의미, 입법의도 및 합목적적 해석을 통하여 널리 특허권과 관련된 사건이 관할집중의 대상이 된다고 보았다. 또 이 글은 미국, 중국, 일본, 스위스, 독일 등 여러 국가의 관할집중 대상을 비교법적으로 검토하였고, 그러한 검토를 바탕으로 다른 국가에서도 특허권에 관한 소송을 넓게 해석하고 있음을 확인하였다. 직무발명보상금 청구 소송은 ‘특허를 받을 수 있는 권리’를 승계한 대가에 관한 것이고 그 권리가 ‘특허권’으로 연결되는 것이므로 그 소송이 관할집중의 대상이 된다고 보았다. 특허발명실시계약 관련 소송은 그 계약이 ‘특허권’을 행사하지 않겠다는 약속에 관한 것이라는 이유로 관할집중의 대상이 된다고 보았다. 이 글은 나아가, 가처분 사건 및 출원공개를 기초로 하는 보상금청구 소송도 관할집중의 대상이 되어야 한다고 주장하였다. 관할집중 제도의 시행 초기라는 점을 감안하여 이 글은 동 제도와 관련되어 향후 검토되어야 할 여러 쟁점도 발굴, 제시하였다. Due to amendments of section 24 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 28 of the Court Organization Act, a case related to a patent right is exclusively handled by five first instance district courts and by the second instance Patent Court. Because of such a jurisdiction consolidation system, it is very important to determine whether a case is related to a patent right or not. After conducting textual interpretation, legislative intent interpretation and purposive interpretation, this paper found that the patent right related case shall be “broadly” interpreted. This paper comparatively analyzed subject matter jurisdiction of several countries, such as the U.S.A., Germany, China, Japan, Switzerland, and based on such analysis, found that such countries also broadly interpret patent related cases. A case demanding remuneration on an employee invention shall be subject to jurisdiction consolidation, because it is on consideration against transfer of “the right for a patent” and the right is corresponding to a patent right. A case relating patent license agreement shall also be subject to jurisdiction consolidation, because it is on a promise not to exercise the “patent right.” This paper, in addition, proclaimed that a case on preliminary injunction and a case requesting remuneration based on application publication should also be subject to jurisdiction consolidation. Considering it is at early stage to operate the jurisdiction consolidation system, this paper suggested some relevant issues which would be raised in the near future.