본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

공정거래법상 특허권 행사행위의 평가 - 원칙적 법리의 확인

Review of Exercises of Patent Rights under the Monopoly Regulation Act: Seeking for Principled Rules

이호영
한국경쟁법학회 (Korean Competition Law Association)|2016.11|경쟁법연구 (Journal of Korean Competition Law)|제34권 |pp. 68-106

0

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

지식재산권 심사지침IPR Guidelines공정거래법 제59조특허권 행사무체재산권의 정당한 행사비표준특허특허범위 기준exercises of patent rightsArticle 59 of the Monopoly Regulation Actreasonable exercise of intellectual property rightsNon-SEPscope of the patent test

초록

While plenty of competition law discussion on exercises of Standards-Essential Patents (hereinafter “SEPs”) has been noticed recently, there has been only scanty discussion on the competition law analysis of non-SEPs so far in the Korean competition law community. Article 59 of the Monopoly Regulation Act, which is modeled after Article 21 of the Japan Anti-monopoly Act, exempts reasonable exercises of intellectual property rights. Although various theories on the provision have been suggested, most of them cannot provide the Korean competition law enforcers with clear and useful guidance on the interplay between intellectual property and competition law. The recently amended Intellectual Property Rights Guidelines (hereinafter “IPR Guidelines”) also fails to give clear and principled standards for reviewing exercises of intellectual property rights in general under the Monopoly Regulation Act. In light of the developments of case law and legal theories on the intersection of intellectual property right and competition law in leading competition law jurisdictions, so-called ‘Scope of the Patent test’and its variation should be rejected as a proper test for reviewing exercises of intellectual property right under the Monopoly Regulation Act. The proper standards for evaluating legality of an exercise of patent rights should strike a balance between its anti-competitive effects and its positive impact on incentives to innovate, giving ultimate priorities to consumer welfares. Additionally, the repeal of Article 59 of the Monopoly Regulation Act is recommended to avoid unnecessary confusion in the course of competition law enforcement against anti-competitive exercises of intellectual property rights.

Abstract

While plenty of competition law discussion on exercises of Standards-Essential Patents (hereinafter “SEPs”) has been noticed recently, there has been only scanty discussion on the competition law analysis of non-SEPs so far in the Korean competition law community. Article 59 of the Monopoly Regulation Act, which is modeled after Article 21 of the Japan Anti-monopoly Act, exempts reasonable exercises of intellectual property rights. Although various theories on the provision have been suggested, most of them cannot provide the Korean competition law enforcers with clear and useful guidance on the interplay between intellectual property and competition law. The recently amended Intellectual Property Rights Guidelines (hereinafter “IPR Guidelines”) also fails to give clear and principled standards for reviewing exercises of intellectual property rights in general under the Monopoly Regulation Act. In light of the developments of case law and legal theories on the intersection of intellectual property right and competition law in leading competition law jurisdictions, so-called ‘Scope of the Patent test’and its variation should be rejected as a proper test for reviewing exercises of intellectual property right under the Monopoly Regulation Act. The proper standards for evaluating legality of an exercise of patent rights should strike a balance between its anti-competitive effects and its positive impact on incentives to innovate, giving ultimate priorities to consumer welfares. Additionally, the repeal of Article 59 of the Monopoly Regulation Act is recommended to avoid unnecessary confusion in the course of competition law enforcement against anti-competitive exercises of intellectual property rights.

참고문헌 (30)

  1. 정상조, "지적재산권법" (2004), 홍문사
  2. 최승재, "특허남용의 경쟁법적 규율" (2010), 세창출판사
  3. 구재군, "지적재산권과 독점규제법의 관계-독점규제법 제59조의 해석론과 관련하여", 사법행정, 41(7) (2000)
  4. 박재훈, "유럽에서의 특허권 라이선스의 거절과 경쟁법상 지배적 지위의 남용에 관한 연구", 산업재산권, (29), pp.253~286 (2009), 한국지식재산학회
  5. 백형기, "지적재산권법과 독점규제법의 충돌과 조화", 정보화정책, 13(4), pp.37~51 (2006), 한국정보화진흥원
  6. 심재한, "지식재산권의 실시계약에 관한 EU의 개정 경쟁법규 연구", 경영법률, 26(1), pp.571~601 (2015), 한국경영법률학회
  7. 오승한, "지적재산권 라이센스의 배타적 조건에 대한 독점금지법의 위법성 판단- 독점금지법의 동태적 효율성 분석을 중심으로 -", 비교사법, 13(1), pp.739~786 (2006), 한국비교사법학회
  8. 이호영, "역지불합의에 대한 공정거래법의 적용에 관한 연구- 우리나라와 미국의 판결례 분석을 중심으로 -", 경영법률, 24(4), pp.399~432 (2014), 한국경영법률학회
  9. 이호영, "소위 ‘사실상 표준필수특허’의 행사에 대한 경쟁법적 평가 － 2016년 지식재산권 심사지침 개정을 중심으로 －", 경영법률, 26(3), pp.365~404 (2016), 한국경영법률학회
  10. 이　황, "지식재산권의 라이선싱과 경쟁법 위반", 경쟁저널, (172) (2014)
  11. 정완, "각국의 경쟁법상 지식재산권 규제에 관한 고찰", 경희법학, 46(2), pp.171~201 (2011), 법학연구소
  12. 조원희, "미국특허법상 특허권 남용(Patent Misuse)의 법리 -공정거래법 위반과의 관계를 중심으로 -", 저스티스, (104), pp.100~117 (2008), 한국법학원
  13. 최병규, "지식재산권과 독점규제법의 관계", 지식재산 21, (56) (1999)
  14. 한도율, "저작권과 공정거래법의 관계", 기업법연구, 29(2), pp.271~302 (2015), 한국기업법학회
  15. 황태희, "지적재산권의 ‘정당한 행사’의 판단기준과 역지불 합의의 경쟁법상 취급", 경쟁법연구, 28, pp.121~143 (2013), 한국경쟁법학회
  16. ABA Antitrust Section of Antitrust Law, "Antitrust Law Developments" (2012)
  17. ABA Antitrust Section of Antitrust Law, "Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook" (2015)
  18. U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, "Antirust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property", ~ (1995)
  19. "Commission Regulation No. 316", 2014 on the application of Article 101(3) of the TFEU to categories of technology transfer agreements
  20. "Commission Notice, Guidelines on the application of Article 101 of the TFEU to technology transfer agreements, 214", L 93, ~
  21. "Communication from the Commission, Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article 102 of the TFEU to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings, 2009", C 45, ~
  22. Ezrachi, "Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers" (2011), Oxford Univ. Press
  23. Kaeserberg, "Intellectual Property, Antitrust and Cumulative Innovation in the EU and the US" (2012), Hart Publishing
  24. Kaplow, "The Patent-Antitrust Intersection: A Reappraisal", Harv. L. Rev, 97(1813), pp.1821~1845 (1984)
  25. Komninos, "Competition Law and the Enforcement of Article 102" (2010), Oxford University Press
  26. Korah, "Intellectual Property Rights and the EC Competition Rules" (2006), Hart Publishing
  27. O’Donoghue, "The Law and Economic of Article 102 TFEU" (2013), Hart Publishing
  28. Controlling the Unilateral Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights: A Multitude if Approaches but No Way Ahead?: The Transatlantic Search for a New Approach, "Schweitzer", EUI, ~, pp.EUI Working Paper No. 2007, 31
  29. 根岸 哲, "注釋 獨占禁止法" (2009), 有斐閣
  30. 金井貴嗣, "獨占禁止法" (2013), 弘文堂

관련 논문AI추천

A Review of Korean Competition Law and Guidelines for Exercise of Standard-related Patents홍대식아시아태평양법연구소 · Journal of Korean Law2015 · 제15권 제1호소위 ‘사실상 표준필수특허’의 행사에 대한 경쟁법적 평가 － 2016년 지식재산권 심사지침 개정을 중심으로 －이호영한국경영법률학회 · 경영법률2016 · 제26권 제3호특허권 남용에 대한 시장지배적 지위남용행위로서 규제 가능성 검토홍명수한국경쟁법학회 · 경쟁법연구2016 · 제34권 표준필수특허 보유자의 FRAND 확약 위반행위에 대한 공정거래법의 집행에 관한 연구이호영한국상사법학회 · 상사법연구2013 · 제31권 제4호공정거래법에 의한 지적재산권 남용 규제: 비판과 대안의 제시손호진중앙법학회 · 중앙법학2011 · 제13권 제1호기술표준 관련 특허권의 행사와 한국 공정거래법의 적용 - 지식재산권 심사지침에 대한 비판적 검토를 중심으로 -권남훈, 홍대식고려대학교 법학연구원 · 고려법학2011 · 제63호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)

온라인 플랫폼 시장과 경쟁법적 쟁점홍대식pp. 3-39ICT플랫폼사업자에 대한 경쟁법 집행 해외사례윤성운, 강수민, 권도형, 김남우pp. 40-67표준필수특허권자의 ‘하위 사업자’에 대한 FRAND 위반 행위의 규제오승한pp. 107-151특허권 남용에 대한 시장지배적 지위남용행위로서 규제 가능성 검토홍명수pp. 155-189수요자의 배타조건부거래(구매)와 시장지배력 남용 문제 – 대법원 2009. 7. 9. 선고 2007두22078 판결 -주진열pp. 190-214
원문 보기