미국 특허침해소송 재판적에 대한 법리의 역사적 전개과정 : 미국 연방대법원 TC Heartland 판결을 중심으로
The Development of the Legal Principles on the Venue of the Patent Infringement Lawsuit in U.S.-Focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s TC Heartland Decision-
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
미국 연방순회항소법원은 1990년 VE Holding 판결을 통하여 특허권자로하여금 피고가 침해피의제품을 판매하는 곳이라면 미국 94개 연방 지방법원어디에서라도 특허침해소송을 제기하는 것을 가능하게 하는 법적인 환경을조성하였다. 그러나 연방순회항소법원이 채택한 법리는 미국 특허침해소송에서 포럼쇼핑이 만연하도록 하였고, 특히 2000년대 이후 Texas 주 동부지구 지방법원에 제기되는 특허침해소송이 급증하였다. 특허괴물은 특허권자에게 친화적인 태도를 견지하는 것으로 유명한 재판적인 Texas 주 동부지구지방법원에 집중적으로 특허침해소송을 제기하여 많은 경제적인 이익을 누렸다. 이에 미국 연방대법원은 TC Heartland 판결을 통하여 미국 특허침해소송에서 포럼쇼핑을 저지하고, 특허괴물이 Texas 주 동부지구 지방법원에특허침해소송을 제기하는 것을 막기 위하여, 특허침해소송의 재판적에 대한법리를 변경하였다. 즉 연방대법원은 미국 사법부와 소송절차법 제1400조(b)가 규정하는 “reside”라는 단어는 국내기업의 경우에는 그 “기업의 법인이설립된 주”만을 의미한다고 명시적으로 판시함으로써, 연방순회항소법원의VE Holding 판결을 폐기하였다. 결국 TC Heartland 판결은 미국 특허침해소송의 재판적을 제한한 판결로 그 의의가 있다.
Abstract
The CAFC had adopted the legal principle that if defendants sell the accused products on a national scale, patent holders could file patent infringement lawsuits in any of the 94 federal trial courts through VE Holding decision in 1990. But the legal principle had allowed forum shopping to prevail in U.S. patent infringement lawsuits, especially since the 2000s when the lawsuits had increased rapidly in the district court of the E.D. of Texas. Patent trolls had made a lot of economic profit by filing patent infringement lawsuits in the court which is famous for favoring patent holders. Therefore the U.S. Supreme court had decided the TC Heartland decision to block forum shopping of the patent infringement suits in U.S. and to prevent patent trolls from filing patent infringement suits in the E.D. Texas. The Supreme court had found that in case of a domestic corporation the word “reside” set forth by the U.S. judiciary and Judicial Procedure 1400(b) means only its state of incorporation. In the end, the TC Heartland decision is very significant because it limits the venue of the patent infringement lawsuits in U.S..
참고문헌 (52)
- 서철원, "미국 민사소송법" (2005), 법문사
- Donald S. Chisum, "Chisum on Patents" (2000), LexisNexis
- Charles Alan Wright, "Federal Practice and Procedure" (2013), Thomson West
- Alan R. Thiele, "Patent Infringement Litigation Handbook: Avoidance and Management" (2010), American Bar Association
- 설민수, "특허괴물 논란: 신화와 그 실제", 지식재산연구, 7(4), pp.79~113 (2012), 한국지식재산연구원[DOI]
- 이주환, "미국 특허법에서의 영구적인 금지명령에 대한 법리의 전개과정-미국 연방대법원 eBay 판결을 중심으로-", 저스티스, 162통권 : 162, pp.154~211 (2017), 한국법학원
- J. Jonas Anderson, "Court Competition for Patent Cases", U. Pa. L. Rev, 163 (2015)
- David G. Baker, "Troll or No Troll? Policing Patent Usage with an Open Post-Grant Review", Duke L. & Tech. Rev, 4 (2005)
- Shyamkrishina Balganesh, "Demystifying the Right to Exclude: Of Property, in Violation, and Automatic Injunctions", Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol'y, 31 (2008)
- Jeremy Cham, "Footsteps of the Patent Troll", Intell. Prop. L. Bull, 10 (2005)
- Tsai-fang Chen, "Venue Reform in Patent Litigation: To Transfer or Not To Transfer", Wake Forest Intell. Prop. L. J, 10 (2010)
- Chester S. Chuang, "Offensive Venue: the Curious Usw of Declaratory Judgment to Forum Shop in Patent Litigation", Geo. Wash. L. Rev, 80 (2012)
- Jeanne C. Former, "Patentography", N. Y. U. L. Rev, 85 (2010)
- Paul R. Gugliuzza, "The Patently Unexceptional Venue Statute", Am. U. L. Rev, 66 (2017)
- Miranda Jones, "Permanent Injunction, A Remedy by Any Other Name is Patently not the Same: How eBay v. MercExchange Affects the Patent Right of Non-Practicing Entities", Geo. Mason. L. Rev, 14 (2007)
- Daniel Klerman, "Forum Selling", S. Cal. Rev, 89 (2016)
- John A. Laco, "Venue in Patent Infringement Actions: Johnson Gas Fouls the Air", Loy. L. A. L. Rev, 25 (1992)
- Peter Lee, "The Supreme Assimilation of Patent Law", Mich. L. Rev, 114 (2016)
- Stephany A. Olsen LeGrand, "eBay v. MercExchange: On Patrol for Trolls", Hous. L. Rev, 44 (2007)
- Mark A. Lemley, "Where to File Your Patent Case", AIPLA Q. J, 38(4) (2010)
- Yan Leychkis, "Of Fire Ants and Claim Construction: An Empirical Study of the Meteoric Rise of the Eastern District of Texas as a Preeminent Forum for Patent Litigation", Yale J. L. & Tech, 9 (2007)
- Teresa Lii, "Shopping for Reversals: How Accuracy Differs across Patent Litigation Forums", Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop, 12 (2013)
- Kimberly A. Moore, "Forum Shopping in Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation?", N. C. L. Rev, 79 (2001)
- Note, "Forum Shopping Reconsidered", Harv. L. Rev, 103(7) (1990)
- Recent Case, "Patent Law – Forum Selection – Federal Circuit Heightens Standard for Plaintiff Presence That Will Weigh Against Transfer – In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010)", Harv. L. Rev, 124(2) (2010)
- William C. Rooklidge, "Venue in Patent Litigation: the Unintended Consequences of Reform", Intell. Prop. & Tech. L. J, 20(3) (2008)
- Richard Samp, "TC Heartland: Patent Venue Question is Informed by Personal Jurisdiction Issues", U. Miami Bus. L. Rev, 25 (2017)
- Michael C. Smith, "Rocket Docket: Marshall Court Leads Nation in Hearing Patent Cases", Tex. B. J, 69 (2006)
- Alisha Kay Taylor, "What Does Forum Shopping in the Eastern District of Texas Mean for Patent Reform", J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L, 6 (2007)
- James Ware, "The History, Content, Application and Influence of the Northern District of California's Patent Local Rules", Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J, 25 (2009)
- Megan Woodhouse, "Shop’til You Drop: Implementing Federal Rules of Patnet Litigation Procedure to Wear out Forum Shopping Patent Plaintiffs", Geo. L. J, 99 (2010)
- Richard C. Wydick, "Venue in Actions for Patent infringement", Stan. L. Rev, 25(4) (1973)
- 이주환, "“미국 특허법에서의 특허침해로 인한 구제와 우리 특허법에 대한 시사점—특허권 균형시대의 도래", 박사, pp.2015
- "U.S. Supreme Court Shuts Down Patent Troll Venue Shoppin" (2017)[URL]
- "U.S. Supreme Court Limits Patent Action Venue" (2017)[URL]
- "Federal Circuit Provides Framework for Establishing Venue in Patent Cases" (2017)[URL]
- "Farewell to Texas? Supreme Court Limits Where Alleged Patent Infringers Can Be Sued" (2017)[URL]
- "Judge Gilstrap’s Patent Venue Test Gets Slapped Down" (2017)[URL]
- "A Look at District Court Filing Trends Six Months after TC Heartland" (2017)[URL]
- "TC Heartland Weekly Update" (2017)[URL]
- "New Venue Considerations May Shape Patent Litigation after TC Heartland" (2017)[URL]
- "Texas Judge Sets Patent Venue Test for a Post-TC Heartland World" (2017)[URL]
- "TC Heartland: The Impact of Updating Patent Venue Rules" (2017)[URL]
- "Patent Litigation Trends in the Three Months after T.C. Heartland" (2017)[URL]
- Paul M. Janicke, "The Imminent Outpouring from the Eastern District of Texas", 2017 Patently-O Pat. L. J. 1, Patentlyo (2017)
- "U.S. Supreme Court Seriously Limits Forum Shopping for Patent Litigation in Unanimous Decision" (2017)[URL]
- "Supreme Court Limits Venue in Patent Suits" (2017)[URL]
- "TC HeartLand Fallout: 1000 Fewer EDTX Filings in 2017" (2017)[URL]
- "Supreme Court Announces New Limits on Venue in Patent Cases, Blunting Key Troll Tool" (2017)[URL]
- "“TC Heartland” Shifts the Patent Litigation Landscape" (2017)[URL]
- "Supreme Court Severely Limits ‘Forum Shopping’ in Patent Lawsuits" (2017)[URL]
- "Supreme Court Alters Patent Venue Landscape-E.D. Tex. No Longer the Heartland of Patent Litigation" (2017)[URL]