심결취소소송의 심리범위와 기술심리관의 역할

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine whether the position of the Patent Court and the Supreme Court putting no limitation to evidences that are submitted to and reviewed by the courts is desirable to secure the interests of the litigant parties. The other purpose of this article is to suggest measures to complement the deficiencies resulted by the above position of the courts. By exploring cases related with the scope of patent litigation, the article tries to obtain insights to provide measures such as expanding the Technical Examiners system, increasing the number of the Technical Examiners and concentrating jurisdiction of patent cases to the Patent Court in order to protect the interests of the patent litigant parties effectively. Key Words:Patent Court of Korea, Supreme Court of Korea, Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal, Technical Examiners, Invalidation Trial of Patent, Trial to Confirm the Scope of a Patent Right, Trial Against Ruling of Refusal or Revocation, novelty, inventive stepThe Patent Court and the Supreme Court do not put any limitations to the facts and the evidences that can be submitted to and reviewed by the above courts, even though they were not handled by the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal (hereinafter, patent tribunal). There are pros and cons for the above position of the courts. This is because if new evidences that were not examined at the patent tribunal are adopted by the courts and used for the decisions, this may result in the parties' loss of opportunities to have adequate examination of the technology specialists on technology related cases. For example, if a plaintiff submits new evidences to the courts that were not dealt in the patent tribunal, the dependent can be deprived of his opportunities to have fair decisions.