RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    산업표준의 포획에 대한 구제수단

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A101888272

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    A number of remedies may apply when patents on the subject matter of industry standards conflict with the full achievement of the purposes of those standards. Several nonpatent law remedies were applied in earlier cases of standards capture, including antitrust and contract-based remedies (fraud, equitable estoppel, and implied license). But These remedies have inherent limitations. So the application of the patent law-derived remedies of mandatory disclosure, compulsory licensing, and patent misuse-based nonenforcement to target certain cases of standards abuse by patent owners is to be considered. The sensitivity of the patent misuse doctrine to the public policy makes the misuse doctrine a viable and important tool to remedy abusive standards capture by patent owners beyond the marketplace impact-focus of antitrust analysis. In the case of a technology standard promulgated by industry, the key inquiry should be whether the patentee disclosed the existence of its patent or patent application to the standards-setting body while that body had an opportunity to select an alternative, nonproprietary standard. If the patentee's nondisclosure of its intellectual property rights to the standards- setting body was intentional, Courts should refuse to enforce the patent altogether under the patent misuse doctrine, thus depriving the patentee of any remedy, injunctive or monetary, for use of the patented invention. And compulsory licensing should be imposed if the patent owner refuses to license all users of the standard.
    번역하기

    A number of remedies may apply when patents on the subject matter of industry standards conflict with the full achievement of the purposes of those standards. Several nonpatent law remedies were applied in earlier cases of standards capture, including...

    A number of remedies may apply when patents on the subject matter of industry standards conflict with the full achievement of the purposes of those standards. Several nonpatent law remedies were applied in earlier cases of standards capture, including antitrust and contract-based remedies (fraud, equitable estoppel, and implied license). But These remedies have inherent limitations. So the application of the patent law-derived remedies of mandatory disclosure, compulsory licensing, and patent misuse-based nonenforcement to target certain cases of standards abuse by patent owners is to be considered. The sensitivity of the patent misuse doctrine to the public policy makes the misuse doctrine a viable and important tool to remedy abusive standards capture by patent owners beyond the marketplace impact-focus of antitrust analysis. In the case of a technology standard promulgated by industry, the key inquiry should be whether the patentee disclosed the existence of its patent or patent application to the standards-setting body while that body had an opportunity to select an alternative, nonproprietary standard. If the patentee's nondisclosure of its intellectual property rights to the standards- setting body was intentional, Courts should refuse to enforce the patent altogether under the patent misuse doctrine, thus depriving the patentee of any remedy, injunctive or monetary, for use of the patented invention. And compulsory licensing should be imposed if the patent owner refuses to license all users of the standard.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • I. 서론
    • II. 특허법외의 구제수단
    • 1. 반트러스트법의 적용
    • 2. 기망행위
    • 3. 형평법상의 금반언의 원칙
    • I. 서론
    • II. 특허법외의 구제수단
    • 1. 반트러스트법의 적용
    • 2. 기망행위
    • 3. 형평법상의 금반언의 원칙
    • 4. 공용수용
    • III. 특허법상의 구제수단
    • 1. 특허권의 비공개에 대한 제재로서의 강제실시허락
    • 2. 특허권 남용
    • IV. 결론
    • 참고문헌
    • Abstract
    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 "행정법원론(하)" 1999

    2 "지적재산권과 표준화의 관계" (60) : 200.7

    3 "산업표준제정과 특허권 및 반독점법적 고찰" (51) : 1998

    4 "기술표준과 특허권 문제" (59) : 2000.3

    5 "Unilateral Refusals To Sell or License Intellectual Property and The Antitrust Duty to Deal" 1999

    6 "The Tension Must Break: The Irreconcilable Interplay Between Antitrust, Defenses to Infringement and Protection of Standardized Software Development Tools" 1999

    7 "The Impact of the 1988 Patent Misuse Reform Act and Noerr-Pennington Doctrine on Misuse Defenses and Antitrust Counterclaims" 1988-89

    8 "Reflections on Current Legislation Affecting Patent Misuse" 70-793, 1988

    9 "Patent Misuse Through The Capture Of Industry Standers" 2002

    10 "Dilettante Affair : Rethinking the Experimental Use Exception to Patent Infringement for Biomedical Research Tools" 2001

    1 "행정법원론(하)" 1999

    2 "지적재산권과 표준화의 관계" (60) : 200.7

    3 "산업표준제정과 특허권 및 반독점법적 고찰" (51) : 1998

    4 "기술표준과 특허권 문제" (59) : 2000.3

    5 "Unilateral Refusals To Sell or License Intellectual Property and The Antitrust Duty to Deal" 1999

    6 "The Tension Must Break: The Irreconcilable Interplay Between Antitrust, Defenses to Infringement and Protection of Standardized Software Development Tools" 1999

    7 "The Impact of the 1988 Patent Misuse Reform Act and Noerr-Pennington Doctrine on Misuse Defenses and Antitrust Counterclaims" 1988-89

    8 "Reflections on Current Legislation Affecting Patent Misuse" 70-793, 1988

    9 "Patent Misuse Through The Capture Of Industry Standers" 2002

    10 "Dilettante Affair : Rethinking the Experimental Use Exception to Patent Infringement for Biomedical Research Tools" 2001

    11 "As Standards Proliferate, So Too a Rise in Defendants Asserting 'Standards Abuse'" June2001

    12 "Antitrust and the Internet Standardization Problem" 1996

    13 "Anticircumvention Misuse" 2003

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2027 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2021-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2018-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2015-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2014-08-27 학회명변경 한글명 : 한국산업재산권법학회 -> 한국지식재산학회
    영문명 : Korea Industrial Property Law Association -> Korea Intellectual Property Society
    KCI등재
    2011-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2010-03-11 학회명변경 한글명 : 한국산업재산권법학회a -> 한국산업재산권법학회 KCI등재
    2009-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2007-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2006-07-31 학술지등록 한글명 : 산업재산권
    외국어명 : Journal of Industrial Property
    KCI등재
    2004-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2003-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2001-07-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 0.81 0.81 0.71
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    0.7 0.69 0.759 0.12
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼