특허권 남용에 대한 시장지배적 지위남용행위로서 규제 가능성 검토
A Study on Misuse of Patents from the Perspective of Abuse of Market Dominant Power
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
A patentee has the exclusive right, and a use of the right will become the object of protection in the Patent Act. But if the use of patents belongs to the misuse, Patent Act will not protect the use of patents and will be applied the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trad Act(hereafter MRFTA) will be applied to the use of patents. At the process of the application it is decisive to review the legitimacy of the use of patents, and the review is legally based on the clause 59 in MRFTA, which stipulates that “The provisions of this Act does not apply to a legitimate exercise of rights under the Copyright Act, the Patent Act, the Utility Models Act, the Design Act, or the Trademark Act.” The review of the legitimacy of use of patents will be made by the two criterions, patent policy and competition policy. If the conduct of a patentee is decided as the misuse of patents, MRFTA will be applied to the conduct, and it should be considered whether the conduct corresponds to the breach of the regulations of the abuse of market dominant power. As the abuse of the market dominant power is considered from the two perspective, exploitative abuse and exclusive abuse, the decision on the abuse of patents shall be based on the two criterions. The standard essential patent must be specially considered in two types of review.
Abstract
A patentee has the exclusive right, and a use of the right will become the object of protection in the Patent Act. But if the use of patents belongs to the misuse, Patent Act will not protect the use of patents and will be applied the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trad Act(hereafter MRFTA) will be applied to the use of patents. At the process of the application it is decisive to review the legitimacy of the use of patents, and the review is legally based on the clause 59 in MRFTA, which stipulates that “The provisions of this Act does not apply to a legitimate exercise of rights under the Copyright Act, the Patent Act, the Utility Models Act, the Design Act, or the Trademark Act.” The review of the legitimacy of use of patents will be made by the two criterions, patent policy and competition policy. If the conduct of a patentee is decided as the misuse of patents, MRFTA will be applied to the conduct, and it should be considered whether the conduct corresponds to the breach of the regulations of the abuse of market dominant power. As the abuse of the market dominant power is considered from the two perspective, exploitative abuse and exclusive abuse, the decision on the abuse of patents shall be based on the two criterions. The standard essential patent must be specially considered in two types of review.
참고문헌 (47)
- 계승균, "표준특허의 법적 성격과 명암", 지식재산정책, 11 (2012)
- 공정위, "보도참고자료", ~ (2014)
- 곽윤직, "민법총칙" (2014), 박영사
- 권남훈, "지식재산권에 대한 실시료의 수준과 경쟁법의 역할", 정보법학, 15(2), pp.91~140 (2011), 한국정보법학회
- 권오승, "경제법" (2014), 법문사
- 권오승, "독점규제법 : 이론과 실무" (2016), 법문사
- 김병일, "지식재산권의 부당한 권리 행사와 남용적 행사 방지에 관한 고찰", 경 쟁저널, (180) (2015)
- 박희섭, "특허법원론" (2006), 세창출판사
- 손영화, "지식재산권에 대한 독점규제법의 적용", 판례월보, (361) (2000)
- 신현윤, "경제법" (2014), 법문사
- 윤선희, "특허법" (2003), 법문사
- 윤신승, "유럽사법재판소의 Huawei v. ZTE 사건 판결", 경쟁저널, (182) (2015)
- 이기수, "경제법(제9판)" (2012), 세창출판사
- 이상주, "대한민국에 특허괴물 몰려온다 : 독점금지법 위반으로 대응하라" (2010), 나남
- 임 호, "특허법" (2003), 법문사
- 정상조, "공정거래와 법치" (2004), 법문사
- 정호열, "경제법 제4판" (2012), 박영사
- 홍동표, "표준특허의 FRAND 실시료 산정 사례 분석: 미국 Microsoft 판결 및Innovatio 판결을 중심으로", 경쟁저널, (183) (2015)
- 홍명수, "공정거래법 제19조 제1항의 해석과 수평적․수직적 공동행위의 규제 법리 고찰", 동아법학, (61), pp.435~456 (2013), 법학연구소
- 홍명수, "표준특허 관련 행위에 대한 공정거래법상 규제 가능성 검토", 법학논총, 36(2), pp.805~827 (2012), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 金井貴嗣, "獨占禁止法" (2010), 弘文堂
- 白石忠志, "獨禁法講義" (2009), 有斐閣
- ABA(Section of Antitrust Law), "Antitrust Law Developments vol. 1" (2007), ABA Publishing
- Almunia, J., "Intellectual property and Competition policy", IP Summit, ~ (2013)
- Bessen, J., "Patent Failure" (2008), Princeton Univ. Press
- Brox, H., "Allgemeiner Teil des BGB" (1999), Carl Heymanns Verlag
- Czapracka, K., "Intellectual Property and the Limits of Antitrust" (2009), Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd
- European Commission, "Antitrust: Commission confirms sending a Statement of Objections to Rambus", ~ (2007)
- FTC, "Response to IEEE", ~ (2015)
- Furse, M., "Competition Law of the EC and UK" (2004), Oxford Univ. Press
- Goyder, J., "EC Competition Law" (2009), Oxford Univ. Press
- Hoerner, R. J., "The Decline(and Fall?) of the Patent Misuse Doctrine in the Federal Circuit", Antitrust L. J., 69 (2001)
- Hovenkamp, H., "Federal Antitrust Policly: The Law of Competition and Its Practice", pp.2005, Thomson
- Jonesday.com, "Standards-Essential Patents and Injunctive Relief", ~ (2013)
- Lange, K. W., "Handbuch zum Deutschen und Europäischen Kartellrecht" (2006), Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft GmbH
- Layne-Farrar, A., "Moving Past The SEP RAND Obsession: Some Thoughts on The Economic Implications of Unilateral Commitments and The Complexities of Patent Licensing", ~ (2014)
- Gebrauchsmustergesetz Kommentar, "Patentgesetz", pp.2011, Mes, P.
- Mueller, J. M., "Patent Law" (2013), Wolters Kluwer
- Rebmann, K., "Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch Band 1**" (2001), C. H. Beck
- Rittner, F., "Europäisches und deutsches Wirtschaftsrecht" (2008), C. F. Müller
- Schellingerhout, R., "Standard-setting from a competition law perspective", Competition Policy Newsletter no. 1-2011, ~
- Scott-Morton, F. M., "The Role of Standards in the Current Patent Wars", Department of Justice, ~ (2012)
- Sullivan, T., "Understanding Antitrust and Its Economic Implications" (2003), LexisNexis
- Tom, W. K., "Antitrust and Intellectual Property: From Separate Spheres to Unified Field", Antitrust L. J, 66(1) (1997)
- Whish, R., "Competition Law" (2005), Oxford Univ. Press
- Whish, R., "Competition Law" (2012), Oxford Univ. Press
- Witting, J., "German Federal Supreme Court decides in landmark case on competition law defence", Bird & Bird, ~ (2009)