Treatment of NPEs (Non-Practicing Entities) under Korean Antitrust Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Legal disputes surrounding non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent-assertion entities (PAEs) have not been common in Korea yet. Nonetheless, there are concerns raised regarding possible anticompetitive effects of their behavior. In 2014, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the KFTC) amended its Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights (the IPR Guidelines), and newly included a section addressing competitive effects of NPEs’ exercise of intellectual property rights. The IPR Guidelines specifically list five types of activities as examples of NPEs abusive or unreasonable anticompetitive behavior. It remains to be seen, however, if NPEs’ potential anticompetitive behavior addressed in the IPR Guidelines would form a separate and lasting category, in particular considering the lack of clear evidence suggesting NPE’s anticompetitive activities in the Korean market so far. Nonetheless and more broadly, the Korean antitrust enforcement authority appears to be ready to assert jurisdiction more proactively and aggressively than before in a case involving a patent-holder’s exercise of its rights, and the review of relevant court cases suggests that the court is in general willing to grant jurisdiction.
Abstract
Legal disputes surrounding non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent-assertion entities (PAEs) have not been common in Korea yet. Nonetheless, there are concerns raised regarding possible anticompetitive effects of their behavior. In 2014, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (the KFTC) amended its Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights (the IPR Guidelines), and newly included a section addressing competitive effects of NPEs’ exercise of intellectual property rights. The IPR Guidelines specifically list five types of activities as examples of NPEs abusive or unreasonable anticompetitive behavior. It remains to be seen, however, if NPEs’ potential anticompetitive behavior addressed in the IPR Guidelines would form a separate and lasting category, in particular considering the lack of clear evidence suggesting NPE’s anticompetitive activities in the Korean market so far. Nonetheless and more broadly, the Korean antitrust enforcement authority appears to be ready to assert jurisdiction more proactively and aggressively than before in a case involving a patent-holder’s exercise of its rights, and the review of relevant court cases suggests that the court is in general willing to grant jurisdiction.
참고문헌 (25)
- Luc Peeperkorn, "IP Licenses and Competition Rules: Striking the Right Balance", World Comp, 26(4), pp.527~528 (2003)
- David L. Schwartz, "Analyzing the Role of Non-Practicing Entities in the Patent System", Cornell L. Rev, 99, pp.425~427 (2014)
- "Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights", Korea Fair Trade Commission, Dec. 17, 2014, ~ (2014)
- D. Daniel Sokol, "Patent Assertion Entities and Competition Policy" (2016), Cambridge University Press
- "KDB and IBK partner on intellectual property fund" (2015)[URL]
- "Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Act No.13450, Sept. 25, 2015", MRFTA, ~ (2015)
- "Korean Government Poised to Tackle the Attacks" (2013)[URL]
- "Supreme Court, 2002Du8626 (en banc), Nov. 22, 2007", ~
- "Guidelines for Review of Unfair Trade Practices", Korea Fair Trade Commission, Apr. 25, 2012, ~ (2012)
- OECD, "Development in Law Enforcements Related to the Adoption of System Monitoring Anticompetitive Behaviors in the Pharmaceutical Sector, DAF", COMP, pp.2014, ~
- "KFTC Decision, 2011-300, Dec. 23, 2011", ~
- "Seoul High Court, 2012Nu3028, Oct. 11, 2012", ~
- "Supreme Court, 2012Du24498, Feb. 27, 2014", ~
- "Supreme Court, 2012Du24498, Feb. 27, 2014", ~
- "Supreme Court,, 2012Du27794, Feb. 27, 2014", ~
- Haksoo Ko, "Facilitating Negotiation for Licensing Standard-Essential Patents in the Shadow of Injunctive Relief Possibilities", Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J, 22, pp.209~ (2014)
- "Seoul District Court, 2011Kahap39552, Aug. 24, 2012", ~
- "Seoul High Court (Case No. 2012Na78063)", ~
- "KFTC Decision, 2009-281, Dec. 30, 2009", ~
- KFTC, "Qualcomm’s Abuse of Market Dominance", Press Release(July 23, 2009), ~ (2009)
- "Seoul High Court, 2010Nu3932, June 19, 2013", ~
- "Supreme Court, Case No. 2013Du14726", ~
- Jiaqing “Jack” Lu, "The Economics and Controversies of Non-practicing Entities (NPEs): How NPEs and Defensive Patent Aggregators Will Change the License Market", Les Nouvelles, pp.56~58 (2012)
- Michael Risch, "Patent Troll Myths", Seton Hall L. Rev, 42, pp.457~467 (2012)
- "Comment of the Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law, on the Korea Fair Trade Commission’s Revised Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights" (2015)[URL]