특허유효추정원칙: Microsoft v. i4i 판례 평석
Presumption of Patent Validity Principle: An Analysis on Microsoft v. i4i
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The U.S. Patent Act provides that “[a] patent shall be presumed valid” and that “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.” 35 U.S.C. § 282. However the provision is silent on whether the asserting party shall prove invalidity by “clear and convincing evidence” or by “preponderance evidence”. This paper analyzes Microsoft v. i4i case, which dealt with the choice between the two rules. In the case, two parties argued four main issues: (1) case law; (2) legislative intent of the Congress; (3) need for deference on expertise of the examiner; and (4) protection of trust interest of a patentee. The U.S. Supreme Court held: (1) precedents preferred clear and convincing evidence rule regardless of whether or not the prior art was considered by the examiner, (2) the Congress chose clear and convincing evidence rule through the 1952 amendment, (3) even though there is doubt on the quality of examinations, the expertise of examiner still must be deferred, and (4) considering the investment made by the patentee, the trust interest of the patentee better be protected. Microsoft v. i4i decision supports clear and convincing evidence rule and further supports patent effectiveness and patentee’s trust interest, thereby consequently enhancing strength of patent right. In 2011 in Korea, the patentees’ winning rate in patent litigations is too low. Some statistics indicates the winning rate between 20% and 26%. Considering such situation, it is claimed that the U.S. clear and convincing evidence rule may be imported to the Korean patent jurisprudence. It is authors’ hope that this paper may give some guidance in such importation.
Abstract
The U.S. Patent Act provides that “[a] patent shall be presumed valid” and that “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.” 35 U.S.C. § 282. However the provision is silent on whether the asserting party shall prove invalidity by “clear and convincing evidence” or by “preponderance evidence”. This paper analyzes Microsoft v. i4i case, which dealt with the choice between the two rules. In the case, two parties argued four main issues: (1) case law; (2) legislative intent of the Congress; (3) need for deference on expertise of the examiner; and (4) protection of trust interest of a patentee. The U.S. Supreme Court held: (1) precedents preferred clear and convincing evidence rule regardless of whether or not the prior art was considered by the examiner, (2) the Congress chose clear and convincing evidence rule through the 1952 amendment, (3) even though there is doubt on the quality of examinations, the expertise of examiner still must be deferred, and (4) considering the investment made by the patentee, the trust interest of the patentee better be protected. Microsoft v. i4i decision supports clear and convincing evidence rule and further supports patent effectiveness and patentee’s trust interest, thereby consequently enhancing strength of patent right. In 2011 in Korea, the patentees’ winning rate in patent litigations is too low. Some statistics indicates the winning rate between 20% and 26%. Considering such situation, it is claimed that the U.S. clear and convincing evidence rule may be imported to the Korean patent jurisprudence. It is authors’ hope that this paper may give some guidance in such importation.
참고문헌 (29)
- Amy J. Tindell, "Final Adjudication of Patent Validity in PTO Reexamination and Article III Courts: Whose Job Is It Anyway?", J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 89, pp.787~ (2007)
- Bryan A. Garner, "Black's Law Dictionary" (2004), WEST THOMSON
- Cecil D. Quillen, "Continuing Patent Applications and Performance at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Extended", Fed. Cir. B.J, 12, pp.35~ (2002)
- , 2003
- Donald S. Chisum, "6 Chisum on Patents § 19.02", ~
- "Draft Agreement on the Establishment of a European Patent Litigation System, art. 41(4)", Feb. 16, 2004, ~ (2004)
- 82d Cong. 2d Sess, , 10~, pp.H.R. Rep. No. 1923 (1952)
- "How to get a European patent: guide for applicants, pt. 1, ch. A" (2004)
- Irwin Aisenberg, "Modern Patent Law Precedent R620"
- Examiner Characteristics and the Patent Grant Rate 5-6, "Mark A. Lemley", Stanford Law & Econ. Olin, ~, pp.Stanford Law & Econ. Olin Working Paper No. 369 (2009)
- Mark A. Lemley, "Probabilistic Patents", J. Econ. Persp, 19, pp.75~ (2005)
- Michael H. Graham, "1 Handbook of Fed. Evid"
- Paul H. Jensen, "Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, Disharmony in International Patent Office Decisions", Fed. Cir. B.J, 16, pp.679~ (2006)
- Robert P. Merges, "As Many as Six Impossible Patents Before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform", Berkeley Tech. L.J, 14, pp.577~ (1999)
- Senate Report No. 82-1979, , ~ (1952)
- Stuart Minor Benjamin, "Who's Afraid of the APA? What the Patent System Can Learn from Administrative Law", Geo. L.J, 95, pp.269~ (2007)
- "Univ. of Houston Law Ctr. Inst. for Intellectual Prop. & Info. Law, Full Calendar Year 2009 Report"[URL]
- 특허권 실효성 확보 필요성에 관한 연구, "정차호", 특허청, 143~ (2010)
- 조상희, "미국 FCC의 결정에 대한 미국 법원의 행정청의 해석 존중의 원칙의 적용", 행정법연구, 18, pp.93~110 (2007), 행정법이론실무학회(行政法理論實務學會)