삼성전자와 애플사 간 특허소송의 현황과 과제 -한국과 미국에서 법적 보호의 비교를 중심으로- = Status quo and Legal Issues of the Patent Litigation Cases of Apple v. Samsung: -Focusing on the comparison of the protections in Korea and the U.S.-

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the present legal disputes between Apple Co. and Samsung Electronics Co. et al. in the United States and Korea, the main issues are: interpretation of FRAND commitment for the standard-essential patents, exhaustion of the process patents, determination of the infringement of design patents, legal requirements for the protection of trade dresses. Exhaustion of the standard patents of Samsung was differently ruled in the jurisdictions of Korea and the U.S. The incompatible decisions, however, seemed to be based on the differences in the fact-finding or interpretation of the scope of the license given by Samsung to the chip maker Intel, since the jurisprudence about the exhaustion of the process patents is well-established. Both jurisdictions concur in that the injunction itself does not comprise patent misuse just because of the fore-declared FRAND commitment. The significant differences between the two jurisdictions can be found in the determination of the design and trade dress infringement. In Korea, well-known components and not well-known components of designs weigh differently when determining the design infringement, whereas over all appearances are significantly compared in the U.S. Trade dresses can be protected within the system of the intellectual property law in Korea as well as in the U.S. For the trade dresses with acknowledged distinctiveness, they can be protected as registered and/or unregistered trademarks in the U.S. while they can be protected either as registered trademarks under the Trademark Law or unregistered well-known signs under the Unfair-Competition Law in Korea. Doctrine of functionality which is well established and consistently applied to restrict the scope of trademark is hard to be found to the cases on the trade dress in Korea. Confusion of trademarks generally has been interpreted to mean point-of-sale confusion, while post-sale confusion has not been expressly acknowledged in Korea. Confusion of well-known signs are determined with all the actual trade related aspects comprehensively appraised, which makes the likelihood of confusion for the well-known signs harder to be acknowledged than for the registered trademarks in Korea. In the U.S., anti-dilution provisions are applied without discrimination to the registered trademarks as well as unregistered trademarks; in Korea, however, the provisions are applied only to the unregistered well-known signs. This renders registered trademarks immune to the application of anti-dilution provisions.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박영규, "표준기술의 경제적, 특허법적 그리고 경쟁법적 문제 -FRAND 조건을 중심으로" 대법원 2012

2 박원규, "특허침해소송에서의 진보성 판단, In 특허판례연구 개정판" 박영사 2012

3 김관식, "특허침해소송에서 진보성결여를 이유로 하는 특허무효의 항변이 허용되는지 여부" 한국지식재산연구원 11 : 2012

4 김보성, "트레이드 드레스에 관한 부정경쟁방지법상 보호, In 서울변호사회 논문집" 2007

5 김관식, "식별력있는 표지로서 트레이드드레스(Trade Dress)의 법적 보호" 대법원 2012

6 신운환, "상표의 기능 및 상품의 동일성 여부에 관한 小考 ―상표권의 침해 여부와 관련하여, 대법원 2009도3929 판례의 분석을 중심으로―" 세창출판사 (64) : 106-155, 2011

7 우재형, "삼성전자와 애플 간 특허소송의 경과와 시사점" 대전고등검찰청 2012

8 Janice M. Mueller, "Patent Law 3rd. ed" Aspen 2009

9 Margreth Barrett, "Intellectual Property" Aspen 2008