범유럽 특허집행 제도의 탄생과 전망 = Pan-European Patent Enforcement from the Perspective of the Third State

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

A foreign judgment must be recognized or declared enforceable in the local forum in order to produce its typical effects as a judgment in the forum country. The choices as to whether to litigate disputes concerning these equivalent rights only in one jurisdiction, and in which particular jurisdiction, may be greatly influenced by the possibility to have a judgment from a prospective forum recognised and enforced in other countries. This is to be justified from two aspects. The one is that for the most part recognition and enforcement are usually sought in the forum where (judgment debtors’) assets are located. The other is that recognition of a foreign judgment prevents subsequent litigation in a different forum. Reliance on the res judicata effect of a foreign judgment is necessary to prevent the losing party from bringing new proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties in the courts of another country. While in principle an American IP holder gets protection at the federal level, by means of judgments and orders which are immediately enforceable throughout the 50 States of the Union, to get a corresponding outcome his European counterpart has to work much harder.
This lack of enforceability entails for European business competitive disadvantage relative to their American peers. With European Patent Package this has been changing. The main advantages of unitary patents are their broad geographic coverage and the ability to enforce centrally, and the clearest benefit of the Unified Patent Court is the fact the it offers the possibility of Europe-wide enforcement in a single court action. Even when the unitary patent system is adopted, this situation for a long time seems to remain the same. If a patentee should assert an unitary patent, he is permitted to have the choice to ‘opt out’ from the Unified patent Court system by filing a request with the EPO. This implies that the two systems are different each other. In this regards I analyse the respective risks from them and strategies against them, especially from the Third State’s perspective.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김용진, "한ㆍEU FTA에서의 증거보전조치와 국내수용입법의 방향" 법학연구소 20 (20): 267-316, 2009

2 김용진, "제3국의 관점에서 본 차세대 유럽민사소송법" 대한변호사협회 (469) : 42-66, 2017

3 김형건, "유럽연합(EU) 단일특허제도 도입에 따른 과제와 전망" 한국법제연구원 2013

4 김용진, "유럽연합 특허시스템의 대대적 변혁과 그 교훈" 한국법제연구원 (54) : 303-343, 2018

5 김용진, "유럽연합 민사집행법의 발전 현황과 시사점" 법조협회 67 (67): 326-365, 2018

6 김성기, "유럽 통합 특허법원의 설립과 발족" 한국지식재산학회 (52) : 253-297, 2017

7 Justine Pila, "The Unitary EU Patent System" 2015

8 Asensio, De Miguel, "Regulation (EU) No. 542/2014 and the International Jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court" 45 : 868-888, 2014

9 Fausto Pocar, "Recasting Brussels I" Cedam 2012

10 Schack, "Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht" 2017

11 Nagel, "Internarionales Zivilprozessrecht" 2013

12 Geimer, "Internarionales Zivilprozessrecht" 2015

13 Asensio, De Miguel, "Intellectual Property in the Global Arena – Jurisdiction, Applicable lasw, and the Recognition of Judgments in Europe, Japan and the US" 244-245, 2010

14 J. Basedow, "Intellectual Property in the Global Arena – Jurisdiction, Applicable lasw, and the Recognition of Judgments in Europe, Japan and the US" Mohr Siebeck 2010

15 Hau, "Executio non conveniens? - Zum Ausschluss der Vollstreckung anerkennungsfähiger ausländischer Entscheidungen" 116 : 23-43, 2017

16 Janal, Ruth, "Europäisches Zivilverfahrensrecht und Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz" Mohr Siebeck 2015

17 Kropholler, "Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht" 2011

18 Hohloch, Gerhard, "Die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung drittstaatlicher Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen" 82 : 500-, 2018

19 Gerhard Hohloch, "Buchbesprechung zu Laugwitz, Helena Charlotte, Die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung drittstaatlicher Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen" 82 : 500-501, 2018