A Review of Korean Competition Law and Guidelines for Exercise of Standard-related Patents
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose and main scope of this paper is to focus on the types of specific conduct with potential issues, the standards for them, and the applicable factors to be considered that were provided with respect to the exercise of patent rights-related technology standards in the Review Guidelines on the Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Right (IPR Guidelines), review the methods to identify the types of such conduct and relevance of such proposed standards, and propose alternatives thereto. This paper concludes with suggestions as follows: Firstly, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) will use its guidelines as a primary framework to enforce the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA) by the KFTC officials even though it has no legislative basis; therefore, it is very important to carefully review its contents. Secondly, in order to regulate non-disclosure of relevant patent technology under the MRFTA, the IPR Guidelines needs to specifically provide that both the intent and effect of the non-disclosure on the standard setting process are required. Thirdly, provisions on imposing unreasonable or discriminatory royalties should be improved to take necessary considerations into account, provide specific factors or standards under the special circumstances where the patented technology is included in a standard. Fourthly, whether procedures for the disclosure of patent information and the ex ante negotiation for licensing terms have been complied with, which are provided as important factors to be considered in judging illegality, does not bear causation or close relationship with the violation of the MRFTA and failure to comply with such procedures should not be considered more seriously than other factors. Lastly, the standard for determining whether an FRAND-encumbered SEP holder’s filing for injunctive relief may be anti-competitive can be considered acceptable compared with the recent practical developments in other jurisdictions.
Abstract
The purpose and main scope of this paper is to focus on the types of specific conduct with potential issues, the standards for them, and the applicable factors to be considered that were provided with respect to the exercise of patent rights-related technology standards in the Review Guidelines on the Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Right (IPR Guidelines), review the methods to identify the types of such conduct and relevance of such proposed standards, and propose alternatives thereto. This paper concludes with suggestions as follows: Firstly, the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) will use its guidelines as a primary framework to enforce the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA) by the KFTC officials even though it has no legislative basis; therefore, it is very important to carefully review its contents. Secondly, in order to regulate non-disclosure of relevant patent technology under the MRFTA, the IPR Guidelines needs to specifically provide that both the intent and effect of the non-disclosure on the standard setting process are required. Thirdly, provisions on imposing unreasonable or discriminatory royalties should be improved to take necessary considerations into account, provide specific factors or standards under the special circumstances where the patented technology is included in a standard. Fourthly, whether procedures for the disclosure of patent information and the ex ante negotiation for licensing terms have been complied with, which are provided as important factors to be considered in judging illegality, does not bear causation or close relationship with the violation of the MRFTA and failure to comply with such procedures should not be considered more seriously than other factors. Lastly, the standard for determining whether an FRAND-encumbered SEP holder’s filing for injunctive relief may be anti-competitive can be considered acceptable compared with the recent practical developments in other jurisdictions.
참고문헌 (39)
- "Supreme Court, 2012Du24498, Feb. 27, 2014", ~
- 홍대식, "사법적 관점에서 본 공정거래법 ― 시장지배적지위 남용행위를 중심으로 ―", 상사법연구, 27(2), pp.333~371 (2008), 한국상사법학회
- "KFTC Decision, 2009-281, Dec. 30, 2009", ~
- 이봉의, "독과점시장과 착취남용의 규제 - 독점규제법 제3조의2 제1항 1호를 중심으로 -", 경쟁법연구, 22, pp.120~151 (2010), 한국경쟁법학회
- "IPR Guidelines in Section I.3.", ~
- "Joint Comments of the American Bar Association’s Sections of Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property Law, International Law, and Science & Technology Law on Revisions to the Korea Fair Trade Commission’s Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights" (2015)[URL]
- Christian Ahlborn, "The antitrust economics of tying: a farewell to per se illegality", Antitrust Bulletin, pp.330~336 (2004)
- Mark A. Lemley, "Intellectual Property Rights and Standard Setting Organizations", Cal. L. Rev, 90, pp.1889~ (2002)
- OECD, "Standard-Setting and Competition Policy, DAF", COMP, pp.2010, 5~7
- Patent Holdouts and the Standard-Setting Process, "Douglas Lichtman", University of Chicago Law and Economics, ~, pp.No. 292 (2006)
- Damien Geradin, "Can Standard-Setting lead to Exploitative Abuse? A Dissonant View on Patent Hold-Up, Royalty Stacking and the Meaning of FRAND", European Competition Law Journal, 3, pp.101~ (2007)
- 손영화, "네트워크市場에서의 技術標準과 公正去來法上의 問題", 상사법연구, 22(1), pp.581~618 (2003), 한국상사법학회
- 오승한, "특허기술의 표준 책정과 경쟁법 적용의 문제", 산업재산권, (23), pp.675~712 (2007), 한국지식재산학회
- "Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink. Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006)", ~
- Anne Layne-Farrar, "How to Avoid Antitrust Trouble in Standard Setting: A Practical Approach", Antitrust, 23(3) (2009)
- Joseph Farrell, "Standard Setting, Patents and Hold-up", Antitrust Law Journal, 74, pp.603~ (2007)
- "FRAND Commitment and EC Competition Law" (2009)[URL]
- "KFTC Decision, 2007-81, May 18, 2007", ~
- 홍대식, "시장지배적 지위 남용행위의 판단기준 개선방안", 경쟁법연구, 21, pp.106~162 (2010), 한국경쟁법학회
- "Supreme Court, 2008Du7465, Mar. 25, 2010", ~
- "Supreme Court, 2002Du8626 (en banc), Nov. 22, 2007", ~
- "Supreme Court, 2000Du6213, May 31, 2002", ~
- "Supreme Court, 2003Da5917, Mar. 28, 2003", ~
- 김형석, "所有物妨害排除請求權에서 妨害의 槪念 ― 大法院 2003.3.28. 선고, 2003다5917 판결의 평석을 겸하여 ―", 서울대학교 법학, 45(4), pp.394~431 (2004), 법학연구소
- "Supreme Court, 2003Da64602, Sept. 13, 2004", ~
- "See Supreme Court, 2002Du12076, Dec. 9, 2004", ~
- 이기종, "시장지배적지위 남용행위로서의 가격남용과 출고조절행위", 상사판례연구, 19(4), pp.315~347 (2006), 한국상사판례학회
- Damien Neven, "Economics at DG Competition 2009-2010", Review of Industrial Organization, 37(4) (2010)
- David Evans, "Excessive Prices: Using Economics to Define Administrable Legal Rules", Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 1(1), pp.97~122 (2005)
- "United Brands Co. v Commission, 1978 ECR 207", ~
- "Abusive Pricing in an IP Licensing Context: an EC Competition Law Analysis" (2007)[URL]
- 권남훈, "지식재산권에 대한 실시료의 수준과 경쟁법의 역할", 정보법학, 15(2), pp.91~140 (2011), 한국정보법학회
- "Supreme Court, 2008Du7465, Mar. 25, 2010", ~
- "Supreme Court, 2008Du17707, Apr. 8, 2010", ~
- "Supreme Court, 2008Du22078, July 9, 2009", ~
- Hong Dae Sik, "The Systems for Anticorruption and Fair Trade" (2011)
- "Case C-170/13, Huawei v ZTE" (2015)[URL]
- "Standard-Essential Patents and Injunctive Relief" (2013)[URL]