http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 주제어 : 공지기술참작의 원칙 (검색결과 3 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
구대환(Koo, Dae-Hwan) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2011 성균관법학 Vol.23 No.3
Many modern technologies develop in a ‘sequential and cumulative’ way making improvements on the top of the prior art. Most of patents are granted inventions that are combinations of known and new technologies or new combinations of known technologies. For these reasons, patent claims have usually involve prior arts. It is unclear whether prior arts involved in a patented claim should be included or excluded from the scope of a patent in trials to confirm the scope of patents, etc. Especially in decisions of 63Hoo45, 85Hoo50, 55, 90Hoo823, the Korean Supreme Court noted that even though a utility model involves prior arts, the scope of the utility model cannot be extended to the prior arts that are not organically connected to the remaining structure having novel technical effects because utility models are granted to novel devices. However, in 2000Hoo617 the Korean Supreme Court notified that known elements in a claim cannot be considered to be without having organic relationship with the remaining novel structure, and thus, such known elements must not be excluded from the scope of a patent right. The purpose of this article is to find out unclear cases in confirming the scope of a patent involving prior arts, highlight the problems resulting from misunderstanding of confirming the scope of a patent, and suggest an appropriate standard in confirming the scope of a patent. Important findings in confirming the scope of a patent with prior arts are the following: (1) It is needed to examine closely whether the prior arts are organically connected with the other novel parts. (2) If prior arts are considered to be organically connected with the other novel parts, the scope of the patent should be considered to comprise the prior arts. (3) If prior arts are not considered to be organically connected with the other novel parts, the scope of the patent should not be considered to comprise the prior arts, even though the patent should not have granted. In some cases (e.g. Supreme Court 82Do2834 decided 29 May 1984, Supreme Court 86Hoo99 decided 1987.9.8., Supreme Court 87Hoo68 decided 1988.1.19., Supreme Court 89Hoo2045 decided 1990.10.26., Supreme Court 90Hoo2409 decided 1991.9.24., Supreme Court 91Hoo1649 decided 1992.2.25., Supreme Court 96Hoo1989 decided 1997. 7. 22.) the Korean Supreme Court made a mistake by confusing the above principles (2) and (3) in confirming the scope of a right. therefore, in future, the Korean Supreme Court should correct the mistake to prevent the similar mistakes.
-
특허침해소송 및 권리범위확인심판에서의 진보성 판단의 필요성에 대한 검토
구대환 한국지식재산학회 2011 産業財産權 Vol.- No.35
In patent infringement proceedings the Korean Supreme Court recently has judged whether plaintiff's patent had novelty, but it has not examined whether the patent had inventive step. This trend appears to be originated from the following belief:(1) It is obvious to distinguish between judgement of novelty and that of inventive step. (2) Judgement of inventive step requires imagination of a person skilled in the art and his technological knowledge. However, judgement of novelty does not require both an imaginal person skilled in the art and his technological knowledge in the art. However, it is reasonable that (1) it is not obvious to distinguish between judgement of novelty and that of inventive step, (2) that judgement of novelty also requires both an imaginal person skilled in the art and his technological knowledge in the art, (3) judgement of novelty can be more difficult than that of inventive step because there is no limitation in cited technology, and (4) it is unfair to do judgement of other patentabilities except inventive step. The purpose of this article is to highlight the problems resulted from the (infringement lawsuit or trial to confirm the scope of patents) cases of the Korean Supreme Court, especially in which inventive step was not judged but novelty was judged. This is to emphasize the necessity to examine inventive step of the patent in an infringement lawsuit, and to provide the court with suggestions to enhance the court's accessibility to the technological knowledge and concentrate jurisdiction on patent infringement cases.
-
구대환 한국지식재산연구원 2014 지식재산연구 Vol.9 No.3
The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012hu4162 declared thatthe court in infringement litigation cannot decide whether the patentedinvention has an inventive step in a trial to confirm the scope of a patentand change precedents. Until the en banc Decision, the Supreme Court had decided theinventiveness of the patented invention in a trial to confirm the scope ofa patent except the Supreme Court Decision 97hu2095 sentenced onMarch 20, 2014. In addition, even though the Patent Act stipulates thatthe patent can be invalidated though an invalidation trial of the patentwhen the patent cannot satisfy the requirements to be patented, theSupreme Court en banc Decision 2010da95390 which is aninfringement suit notified that the court dealing with an infringementsuit could determine whether the patented invention had an inventivestep. Considering the Patent Act and the Supreme Court en bancDecision 2010da95390, the Supreme Court en banc Decision2012hu4162 makes us have questions. Because the Supreme Court enbanc Decision 2010da95390 declared that the courts of an infringementsuit could decide the inventive step of a patented invention when it wasobviously considered to be invalidated in an invalidation trial, itappeared that courts of a trial to confirm the scope of a patent (which isbasically similar to an infringement suit in that it is to confirm whether an accused invention belongs to the scope of the patented invention)also could decide the inventive step of the patented invention. Againstthis backdrop, this paper argues that the en banc Decision 2012hu4162is not proper in that it prohibits judgment of the inventive step of apatented invention even when it is considered to be invalidated in aninvalidation trial and the en banc Decision is a trial to confirm the scopeof a patent. 대법원은 2012후4162 전원합의체 판결에서 권리범위확인심판에서 특허발명에 진보성이 결여되어 무효사유가 명백하다고 하더라도 이에 대한 진보성 판단을 할 수 없다고 하면서 이와 배치되는 판례를 변경하였다. 종래 대법원이 권리범위확인심판에서 진보성 판단을 할 수 없다고 한 판례는 단 한 건에 불과하고 다수의 판례에서 진보성 판단을 인정하였다. 또한 특허법은 특허에 무효사유가 있는경우 특허무효심판을 통하여 무효로 할 수 있다고 규정하고 있지만, 대법원은2010다95390 전원합의체 판결에서 침해소송에서는 진보성 판단을 할 수 있다고 했다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 대법원은 2012후4162 전원합의체 판결에서 권리범위확인심판에서는 진보성 판단을 할 수 없다고 한 것이 적절한 것인지에 대하여의문이 남는다. 대법원은 2010다95390 전원합의체 판결에서 특허발명에 진보성이 결여되어 무효심판에서 무효로 될 것이 명백한 경우 침해소송에서 진보성 판단을 할 수 있다고 했다면, 이와 유사한 성격의 권리범위확인심판에서도 특허발명에 진보성이 결여되어 있는 것이 명백한 경우 당연히 진보성 판단을 할 수 있어야할 것이기 때문이다. 이러한 의문점을 바탕으로 이 논문은 대법원이 2010다95390 전원합의체 판결에서 침해소송법원이 진보성 판단을 할 수 있다고 하였음에도 불구하고, 권리범위확인심판에서는 진보성 판단을 할 수 없다고 한 2012후4162 전원합의체 판결이 갖고 있는 의미와 문제점을 검토한다.
KCI
스콜라연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
