Study on the Concentration of Jurisdiction over Intellectual Property Cases

국문 초록 (Abstract)

지적재산분쟁해결에 있어 통일성과 전문성이 요구됨에 따라, 세계 각국은 지적재산 사건의 관할을 집중시키는 추세이다.
다만, 지적재산사건의 관할집중의 정도와 법원의 운영방식은 국가별로 차이가 있다.
예컨대, 미국연방항소법원은 모든 특허사건의 항소심을 관할한다. 일본에서는 기술류 사건의 1심에 대한 관할권이 단 2개의 일반지방재판소(동경지방재판소과 오사카지방재판소)에만 주어지고, 지적재산고등재판소가 동경고등재판소의 특별지부로서 모든기술류 사건의 항소심을 전담하여 처리한다. 한국의 특허법원은 특허청의 심결에 대한 취소소송에 대하여 전속관할권을 가지고 있지만, 지적재산관련 민사사건은 특허법원이 아닌 일반법원이 관할한다. 중국은 최근 북경, 상해, 광저우에 3개의 지적재산법원을 설치하였다. 이 3개의 지적재산법원은 1심 혹은 항소심으로서 모든 종류의 지적재산사건을 처리하지만, 자신이 소재한 도시 내지 성 내에서만 관할권이 있다는 것이 특징이다.
한국과 중국에서는 재산사건의 관할집중에 대한 논의가 계속 진행되고 있다. 유의해야 할 것은 지적재산사건의 관할권을 집중시킴으로써 얻는 이점이 있는 반면, 이로 인한 단점도 존재한다는 점이다. 또한 지적재산전문법원을 설치하는 것과 지적재산사건의 관할권을 1개 혹은 소수의 일반법원에 집중시키는 것은 궁극적으로는 같은 목적을 지향하고 있지만, 실제 운영 및 효과의 측면에서는 차이가 있다. 그러므로 지적재산사건의 관할권을 집중시키고자 하는 나라는 어떠한 모델을 채택할지 결정함에 있어 자국의 사정을 정확히 파악해야 할 것이다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In today’s world, the Intellectual Property (IP) dispute resolution has become more important and requires uniformity and specialization; thus, there is a global trend toward concentrating jurisdiction over IP cases or establishing specialized IP courts based on the concentration of jurisdiction over IP cases. This has resulted not only from the distinctive characteristics that differentiate IP cases from general civil cases, but also for practical reasons.
Each country, however, concentrates its jurisdiction over IP cases to various extents and operates the courts differently. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a national appellate patent court, has second-instance jurisdiction over all patent cases in the United States. In Japan, jurisdiction over technology-related cases in the first instance is given to only two general district courts in Tokyo and Osaka. The Intellectual
Property High Court of Japan, as a special branch of the Tokyo High Court, exclusively hears all technology-related cases in the second instance. The Patent Court of Korea has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the Korean Intellectual Property Office; however, all IP civil cases in South Korea are subject to the jurisdiction of general courts, not the Patent Court. China recently set up three specialized IP courts in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. These three IP courts deal with all kinds of IP cases but have jurisdiction over only the city or province in which they are located.
The concentration of jurisdiction over IP cases is an ongoing project in some countries such as South Korea and China. Many efforts have been made to concentrate jurisdiction over IP infringement cases in South Korea. As reform projects in China are not yet nearing completion, there is still sufficient leeway to implement jurisdiction concentration for IP cases there. One thing to note is that there are practical reasons for, and many advantages to, concentrating jurisdiction over IP cases or establishing specialized IP courts, but there are some disadvantages, too. In addition, establishing specialized IP courts and concentrating jurisdiction over IP cases in one or a few general courts ultimately aim at the same purposes, but certain aspects of the two approaches are significantly different.
Therefore, a country such as China or South Korea that intends to concentrate jurisdiction over IP cases or operate specialized IP courts needs to first analyze its own situation carefully in deciding which model to employ.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. Introduction
• Ⅱ. The Concentration of Jurisdiction over Intellectual
• Property Cases in China
• 1. Legal Framework for Protecting and Enforcing IP Rights
• 2. Jurisdiction over and Management of IP Litigation
• 3. Specialized IP Courts in China
• 4. Evaluation
• Ⅲ. What Do We Need to Consider in
• Concentrating Jurisdiction over IP Litigation?
• 1. Practical Reasons to Concentrate Jurisdiction over IP cases
• 2. Downside of Concentrating Jurisdiction over IP Cases
• 3. Specialized IP Courts vs. Designated General Courts for IP Cases
• 4. Review
• Ⅳ. Conclusion