특허권 침해에 대한 손해배상액 산정을 위한 특허발명의 기여도(apportionment ratio) 산정방법
A Method for Calculating the “Apportionment Ratio” of a Patented Invention When Calculating Damages for Patent Infringement
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
피고제품이 특허권의 권리범위에 속하는 경우, 그 제품을 기준으로 특허권 침해에 대한 손해배상액을 산정한다. 그런데 특허발명이 해당 제품의 일부분에 기여하는 경우 ‘기여도’를 산정한 후 손해배상액을 산정하게 된다. 그 기여도 산정에 있어서 지금까지 기여도를 제대로 정의한 사례를 발견하지 못하였다. 대상 특허발명이 대상 제품에 기여한 정도가 기여도인 것으로 대충 설명하는 사례가 일반적이었다. 이 글은 기여도를 정의하는 두 방식을 제시하였다. 하나는 해당 제품의 가치(가격) 중 대상 특허발명의 가치의 비율이라는 정의이다. 다른 하나는 해당 제품에 적용된 전체 기술의 가치 중 대상 특허발명의 가치의 비율이라는 정의이다. 이 글은 여러가지 이유로 후자의 정의가 실무적으로 더 타당함을 설명한다. 기여도 산정이 단순제품에서는 상대적으로 용이하나, 복잡제품에서는 상대적으로 어렵다. 복잡제품에서의 기여도 산정을 용이하게 하는 도구로 ‘최소특허부품의 원칙’이 활용되어 왔다. 이 글은 최소특허부품의 원칙이 타당함을 수학적으로 설명하였다. 아래 공식에 따라 특허부품의 가격과 전체 제품의 가격의 비율(A)을 구하는 것이 크게 어렵지 않을 것이고, 관건은 그 특허부품에 적용된 전체 기술의 가치와 대상 특허발명의 가치의 비율(B)을 구하는 작업이 된다. 이러한 산정방식이 복잡제품에서 다른 부품에 적용된 기술의 가치를 비교하지 않게 하는 장점을 가진다.
Abstract
After a patent-at-issue is determined to be valid and infringed, damages is calculated based on the market value (price) of either the infringer's product or the patentee’s product. If a patented invention contributes to only part of the product at issue, adequate damages can be determined after calculating an apportionment ratio. However, no proper definition for the apportionment ratio has yet been suggested in the U.S., even though apportionment ratio calculation is becoming increasingly important. At best, it is common for an apportionment ratio to indicate the degree to which a patented invention contributes to value of the accused product. This article suggests two different ways to define the apportionment ratio: the value of a patented invention over the value of the product at issue or the value of a patented invention over the value of all technologies applied to the product at issue. This article suggests two reasons why the latter definition is better than the former one. Firstly, the latter definition can explain the appropriateness of a smallest salable patent-practicing unit (SSPPU) approach. Measuring an apportionment ratio would be relatively easier when the product at issue is not complex. In other words, it is very difficult to use the price of that product without attempting to apportion the value attributable to the patented invention. In this regard, SSPPU approach has been used as a tool to ease the calculation of the apportionment ratio for a complex product. This article explains the appropriateness of the SSPPU approach using the mathematical formula given below. Secondly, the formula reflecting the latter definition above would have a merit in calculating the apportionment ratio because it simplifies the calculation of the apportionment ratio when the product at issue is complex by eliminating the need to account for the value all the technologies applied to non-disputed components within the product. Using that formula, it would not be very difficult to determine percentage value “A” by using the price of the patented component as the numerator and the price of the product at issue as the denominator of the fraction. In other words, the critical issue will be to calculate percentage value “B” to represent the ratio between the value of the patented invention and the value of all technologies applied to the patented component. According to the formula suggested below, the calculation of the apportionment ratio is made simple even though a complex product is at issue in that it eliminates the need to account for the value of all technologies applied to other components other than the patented component within that product.
참고문헌 (53)
- 김상중, "지적재산권 침해로 인한 손해배상책임 : 손해배상법의 현대적 발전경향의 관점에서", 재산법연구, 31(3), pp.249~290 (2014), 한국재산법학회
- 전현철, "조세소송에 있어서 주장책임과증명책임에 관한 고찰", 원광법학, 35(3), pp.163~189 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 정차호, "직무발명보상금 산정에서의 대상 직무발명의 ‘기여도’ 산정법리", 성균관법학, 31(2), pp.287~343 (2019), 법학연구원[DOI]
- 정차호, "특허권 침해에 대한 손해배상액 산정에 있어서의 기여도(apportionment ratio) 산정 법리", 정보법학, 21(3), pp.83~123 (2017), 한국정보법학회
- 정차호, "특허권 침해에 대한 손해배상액 산정: 미국의 기여도(apportionment ratio) 법리", 과학기술과 법, 10(2), pp.311~376 (2019), 법학연구소[DOI]
- 주현재, "특허법상 손해배상액 산정에 있어서 기여도 증명책임의 소재", 지식재산연구, 13(1), pp.1~52 (2018), 한국지식재산연구원[DOI]
- 정차호, "특허권침해 손해배상액 산정의 기초(base): 전체시장가치원칙, 최소판매가능부품원칙 및 기여도배분원칙의 상황별 적용", 법학연구, 22(2), pp.243~270 (2014), 법학연구소
- 최지선, "특허침해 손해액 산정시 기술가치평가 방법론 활용 가능성에 관한 소고: DCF모델과 침해자이익 조항 비교를 중심으로", 산업재산권, (51), pp.221~297 (2016), 한국지식재산학회
- 알로이즈 휘터만, "Damages in patent litigation in Germany and before the UPC", 문화미디어엔터테인먼트법, 9(2), pp.101~116 (2015), 법학연구원 문화.미디어.엔터테인먼트법연구소
- 정차호, "특허법의 손해배상론" (2016), 동방문화사
- 특허침해 손해배상액 산정 방식 및 기준 연구, "정차호", 성균관대학교 산학협력단, ~ (2017)
- Andrew Blair-Stanek, "Profits As Commercial Success", Yale L.J, 117, pp.642~ (2008)
- Anne Layne-Farrar, "The Patent Damages Gap: An Economist’s Review of U.S. Statutory Patent Damages Apportionment Rules", Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J, 26, pp.31~ (2018)
- Bernard Chao, "The Case for Contribution in Patent Law", U. Cin. L. Rev, 80, pp.97~ (2011)
- Caroline B. Blitzer, "Corporation and Business Law", La. B.J, 49, pp.475~ (2002)
- Christopher B. Seaman, "book titled Patent Remedies and Complex Products" (2019), Cambridge University Press
- Damien Geradin, "Patent Value Apportionment Rules for Complex, Multi-Patent Products", Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J, 27, pp.763~ (2011)
- David Franklyn, "The Problem of Mop Heads in the Era of Apps: Toward More Rigorous Standards of Value Apportionment in Contemporary Patent Law", J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 98, pp.182~ (2016)
- David Kappos, "The Smallest Salable Patent-Practicing Unit: Observations on Its Origins, Development, and Future", Berkeley Tech. L.J, 32, pp.1433~ (2017)
- David P. Miranda, "The Crashworthiness Doctrine in New York", ~ (1997)
- David W. Opderbeck, "Patent Damages Reform and the Shape of Patent Law", B.U. L. Rev, 89, pp.127~ (2009)
- DeForest McDuff, "Splitting the Atom: Economic Methodologies for Profit Sharing in Reasonable Royalty Analysis", Les Nouvelles, 51, pp.70~ (2016)
- Elizabeth M. Bailey, "Making Sense of “Apportionment” in Patent Damages", Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev, 12, pp.255~ (2011)
- Ellen R. Peirce Terry, "Workers’ Compensation and Occupational Disease: A Return to Original Intent", Or. L. Rev, 67, pp.649~ (1988)
- F. Russell Denton, "Random Walks, Non-Cooperative Games, and the Complex Mathematics of Patent Pricing", Rutgers L. Rev, 55, pp.1175~ (2003)
- Geoffrey D. Aurini, "Evaluating and Addressing the Complexities of Various Intellectual Property Cases", 2015 WL 4975035, ~ (2015)
- Gerald F. Tietz, "Crashworthiness and Erie: Determining State Law Regarding the Burden of Proving and Apportioning Damages", Temp. L. Rev, 62, pp.587~ (1989)
- Gregory K. Leonard, "Reflections on the Debates Surrounding Standard-Essential Patents", Antitrust Source, 14, pp.1~ (2015)
- Howard W. Fogt, Jr., "The Antitrust and Technology Transfer Licensing Interface: A Comparative Analysis of Current Developments", Int'l Tax & Bus. Law, 13, pp.1~ (1995)
- IPO, "Apportionment in Determining Reasonable Royalty Damages: Legal Principles, Practical Considerations and Countervailing Viewpoints", ~ (2018)
- Jaimeson Fedell, "A Step in the Right Direction: Patent Damages and the Elimination of the Entire Market Value Rule", Minn. L. Rev, 98, pp.1143~ (2014)
- Jane Nielsen, "Rethinking the standard for ascertaining the quantum of disgorgement in patent law contexts", J.B.L, ~ (2017)
- John M. Golden, "Foreword: Channeling Patent Damages", Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J, 26, pp.5~ (2018)
- John S. Torkelson, "Calculating Reasonable Royalty Damages for Infringement of Early-Stage Technology Patents", Sedona Conf. J, 4, pp.47~ (2003)
- John W. Schlicher, "Patent Damages, the Patent Reform Act, and Better Alternatives for the Courts and Congress", J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 91, pp.19~ (2009)
- Jonathan R. Spivey, "King Instruments Corporation v. Perego: Conflict in the Awarding of Patent Damages", T. Marshall L. Rev, 21, pp.369~ (1996)
- Josh Friedman, "Apportionment: Shining the Light of Day on Patent Damages", Case W. Res. L. Rev, 63, pp.147~ (2012)
- Mark A. Glick, "The Economics of Reasonable Royalty Damages: The Limited, Proper Role of the So-Called “Analytical Method”", J. Marshall L. Rev, 49, pp.1~ (2015)
- Mark Snyder, "SSPPU: A Tool For Avoiding Jury Confusion", Sedona Conf. J, 17, pp.373~ (2016)
- Matthew C. Holohan, "Holohan, Making Sense of Apportionment in Patent Damages: Strategy in the Face of Uncertainty, Colo. Law", ~ (2015)
- Michael Risch, "(Un)reasonable Royalties", B. U. L. Rev, 98, pp.187~ (2018)
- Patryk Oskar Rogowski, "Damages for Partial Product Design Patent Infringement", Touro L. Rev, 33, pp.1243~ (2017)
- Paul M. Janicke, "Contemporary Issues in Patent Damages", Am. U. L. Rev, 42, pp.691~ (1993)
- 2018 Patent Litigation Study, "PWC", PriceWaterhouseCoopper, ~ (2020)
- Randall W. Schwartz, "Patent Reform and the Perception of A Broken System", J. Kan. B. Ass'n (2010)
- Ronald M. Sandgrund, "Deconstructing Construction Defect Fault Allocation and Damages Apportionment-Part II, Colo. Law", ~ (2011)
- Roy J. Epstein, "The “25% Rule” for Patent Infringement Damages After Uniloc", Duke L. & Tech. Rev. (2012)
- Thomas A. Eaton, "Who Owes How Much? Developments in Apportionment and Joint and Several Liability Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33", Mercer L. Rev, 64, pp.15~ (2012)
- Yasufumi Shiroyama, "National Patent Litigation-Japan", Les Nouvelles, 53, pp.360~ (2018)
- 管荣齐, "以技术分摊规则核算专利侵权损害赔偿数额—日本本田公司等诉力帆公司等专利侵权纠纷案", 中国发明与专利, 16(1) (2019)
- 刘晓, "论知识产权损害赔偿中侵权获利的分摊方法", 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), (4) (2018)
- 黄熠, "专利损害赔偿计算中技术分摊规则的适用条件及证据规则", 法制与经济总, (339) (2013)
- 张玲, "专利侵权损害赔偿额计算中的技术分摊规则", 天津法学总, (113) (2013)