특허침해로 인한 금지권의 상대화(相對化)에 대하여
A Study On The Proportionality Of Injunction Against Patent Infringement
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper is a study on the “proportionality of injunction” for patent infringement and a proposal of its adoption through enactment. The injunction against patent infringement has been regarded as a homology with that of property ownership. However, it is to be noted that Patent Act has its original goal and the rule of remedy for patent infringement can be established upon its own statutory purpose. The conventional framework of remedy: straight choice of injunction between "allowance" or "denial" reveals limitation to handle the reality of various patent infringements in practice. The substantial cases to arouse this issue are, the injunction over whole article by a patent of small component(s); the injunction against the infringer of good faith with reasonable ground; the injunction by a patent whose validity is uncertain. As a plausible resolution, Art. 126 of Patent Act shall be amended allowing the judges legal discretion in ordering injunction. Namely, judges may consider equitable factors such as willfulness of infringer; balance of interest between parties; capability and amount of alternative monetary remedies, etc. This renovation takes the unstable application of 'Abuse of Right', which has been the basis of denial of injunction, into statutory framework, giving solid ground of jurisprudence. It also enables the judges to exercise flexible discretion balancing the interest among patent holders, the competitors and social policy. The proportionality in injunction is widely accepted in the U.S. practice for patent infringement since eBay case(2006). The relevant regulations of EU: The Directive On The Enforcement Of Intellectual Property Rights (2004), Agreement on a Unified Patent Court(2013) also reveal a trend moving toward proportionality in Europe.
Abstract
This paper is a study on the “proportionality of injunction” for patent infringement and a proposal of its adoption through enactment. The injunction against patent infringement has been regarded as a homology with that of property ownership. However, it is to be noted that Patent Act has its original goal and the rule of remedy for patent infringement can be established upon its own statutory purpose. The conventional framework of remedy: straight choice of injunction between "allowance" or "denial" reveals limitation to handle the reality of various patent infringements in practice. The substantial cases to arouse this issue are, the injunction over whole article by a patent of small component(s); the injunction against the infringer of good faith with reasonable ground; the injunction by a patent whose validity is uncertain. As a plausible resolution, Art. 126 of Patent Act shall be amended allowing the judges legal discretion in ordering injunction. Namely, judges may consider equitable factors such as willfulness of infringer; balance of interest between parties; capability and amount of alternative monetary remedies, etc. This renovation takes the unstable application of 'Abuse of Right', which has been the basis of denial of injunction, into statutory framework, giving solid ground of jurisprudence. It also enables the judges to exercise flexible discretion balancing the interest among patent holders, the competitors and social policy. The proportionality in injunction is widely accepted in the U.S. practice for patent infringement since eBay case(2006). The relevant regulations of EU: The Directive On The Enforcement Of Intellectual Property Rights (2004), Agreement on a Unified Patent Court(2013) also reveal a trend moving toward proportionality in Europe.
참고문헌 (40)
- 김기영, "특허와 침해" (2012), 육법사
- 송영식, "지적소유권법(상권)" (2013), 육법사
- 양창수, "독일민법전" (2008), 박영사
- 정상조, "특허법 주해(Ⅱ)", 박영사, ~ (2010)
- 정종섭, "헌법학원론" (2009), 박영사
- 강명수, "특허침해죄와 고의 입증", 법학연구, 55(3), pp.155~182 (2014), 법학연구소
- 김기영, "Patent Troll에 대한 법적·제도적 대응방안 연구", 박사, 법학, pp.2008
- 박성수, "한국의 특허권 남용 규제", Law&Tech, 3(1) (2007)
- 박성호, "지적재산권에 관한 헌법 제22조 제2항의 의미와 내용", 법학논총, 24(1), pp.95~118 (2007), 법학연구소
- 설민수, "특허괴물 논란: 신화와 그 실제", 지식재산연구, 7(4), pp.79~113 (2012), 한국지식재산연구원
- 설민수, "특허침해 구제조치로서 금지명령의 적절성과 그 개선방향에 대한 비교법적 접근", 저스티스, (133), pp.115~158 (2012), 한국법학원
- 손호진, "특허권의 부당한 행사에 대한 규제 － 비실시특허권자의 특허침해금지청구권의 남용을 중심으로 －", 안암법학, (34), pp.823~862 (2011), 안암법학회
- 조영선, "특허법상 선사용권(先使用權) 제도의 운용에 대한 검토", 인권과 정의, (421), pp.47~66 (2011), 대한변호사협회
- 조영선, "특허권 남용 법리의 재구성", 저스티스, 135, pp.137~172 (2013), 한국법학원
- 竹田和彦, "특허의 지식" (2011), 도서출판 에이제이디자인기획
- 中山信弘, "特許法" (2012), 弘文堂
- 標準規格必須特許の権利行使に関する調査研究（Ⅱ）報告書, "一般財団法人 知的財産研究所", 日本 特許廳, ~ (2013)
- 権利行使態様の多様化を踏まえた特許権の効力の在り方に関する調査研究報告書, "一般財団法人 知的財産研究所", 日本 特許廳, ~ (2014)
- Abraham Bell, "A Theory of Propert", Cornell L. Rev, 90 (2004)
- Carl Shapiro, "Prior User Rights", American Economic Review, 96(2) (2006)
- Christopher A. Cotropia, "Copying in Patent Law", North Carolina L.R, 87 (2009)
- Dan L. Burk, "Policy Levers in Patent Law", VA. L. Rev, 89(7) (2003)
- Daniel A. Crane, "Intellectual Liability", Texas, L. Rev, 88(2) (2009)
- Haedicke, "Handbuch des Patentrechts" (2012), C. H. Beck
- Ian R. Macneil, "Efficient Breach of Contract : Circles in the Sky", VA. L. Rev, 68 (1982)
- John M. Golden, "Injunction as More(or Less) than Off Switches: Patent-Infringement Injunction's Scope", Texas L. Rev, 90 (2012)
- "Injunctions in cases of infringement of IPR(Germany)" (2011)[URL]
- Marcus Sonnenberg, "Die Einschränkbarkeit des patentrechtlichen Uterlassungsanspruchs im Einzelfall" (2014), Springer Gabler
- Mark A. Lemley, "Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding", Texas L. Rev, 83 (2005)
- Mark Marfé, "The Power of National Courts and the Unified Patent Court to Grant Injunctions : A Comparative Study", Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 10(3) (2015)
- The Legal Notion of Abuse of Patent Rights, "Michelangelo Temmerman", Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research, ~, pp.Working Paper No. 2011 (2011), 23
- Rober D. Cooter, "Law & Economics" (2013), 경문사
- Samson Vermont, "Independent Invention As a Defense to Patent Infringement", Michigan L. R, 105 (2006)
- Stephen M. Maure, "The Independent Invention Defence in Intellectual Property", Economica, 69 (2002)
- "The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies With Competition" (2011)[URL]
- Ted Sichelman, "Commercializing Patents", Stan. L. Rev, 62 (2010)
- Ted Sichelman, "Purging Patent Law of Private Law Remedies", Texas L. Rev, 92 (2014)
- Thomas W. Merrill, "What Happened to Property in Law and Economics?", The Yale Law Journal, 111(2) (2001)
- Tun-Jen Chiang, "A Cost-Benefit Approach to Patent Obviousness", St. John’s L. Rev, 82 (2008)