특허권 및 전용실시권의 개념 재정립
Reestablishment of Concepts of Patent Right and Exclusive License Right
0
조회
0
다운로드
13
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
On the question whether, under the current Korean patent law, a patent right contains a self-exploitation right as well as an exclusive right,this paper negatively answers on following reasons: (1) the Patent Act cannot bestow the inventor applicant with the self-exploitation right which was originally and already his/her right under the natural right theory, (2)TRIPs Agreement Art. 28 prescribes patent right as an exclusive right, (3)other countries, such as the U.S.A. and China, clearly explain so and (4)especially the European Patent Office clearly explains that it is a common misconception that a patent gives its owner the right to make use of his invention. Based on such reasons, this paper strongly proclaims that relevant articles of the Korean Patent Act, such as articles 94, 98, 100,102, be accordingly amended. If the patent right is a mere exclusive right without self-exploitation right, the right of an exclusive licensee must be within such patent right. Then, to answer the concept of an exclusive license right, this paper further comparatively analyzes laws of the U.S.A., France, Germany and the U.K. Based such study, it could be concluded that (1) the U.S.A. determines exclusive license right not based on the face name of a license agreement but based on assignment of all substantial rights, (2)France puts the exclusive license slightly under the patent right, (3)Germany does over the patent right and (4) the U.K. positions an exclusive license right as the same as the patent right. Current Korean Patent Act seems to follow the U.K. style, considering that many provisions put "or exclusive licensee" after "patentee". If the Korean Patent Act positions the exclusive license right as the same as the patent right, an exclusive licensee may be considered to have the same right as a co-owner of the patent right. Then, determining whether an exclusive licensee alone has standng for a lawsuit, we can look whether a co-owner alone has standing in the same situation. Unfortunately, however, current Korean law is not clear on the standing of a co-owner alone. Therefore, to determine standing of an exclusive licensee, we must wait until the standing issue of a co-owner be resolved.
Abstract
On the question whether, under the current Korean patent law, a patent right contains a self-exploitation right as well as an exclusive right,this paper negatively answers on following reasons: (1) the Patent Act cannot bestow the inventor applicant with the self-exploitation right which was originally and already his/her right under the natural right theory, (2)TRIPs Agreement Art. 28 prescribes patent right as an exclusive right, (3)other countries, such as the U.S.A. and China, clearly explain so and (4)especially the European Patent Office clearly explains that it is a common misconception that a patent gives its owner the right to make use of his invention. Based on such reasons, this paper strongly proclaims that relevant articles of the Korean Patent Act, such as articles 94, 98, 100,102, be accordingly amended. If the patent right is a mere exclusive right without self-exploitation right, the right of an exclusive licensee must be within such patent right. Then, to answer the concept of an exclusive license right, this paper further comparatively analyzes laws of the U.S.A., France, Germany and the U.K. Based such study, it could be concluded that (1) the U.S.A. determines exclusive license right not based on the face name of a license agreement but based on assignment of all substantial rights, (2)France puts the exclusive license slightly under the patent right, (3)Germany does over the patent right and (4) the U.K. positions an exclusive license right as the same as the patent right. Current Korean Patent Act seems to follow the U.K. style, considering that many provisions put "or exclusive licensee" after "patentee". If the Korean Patent Act positions the exclusive license right as the same as the patent right, an exclusive licensee may be considered to have the same right as a co-owner of the patent right. Then, determining whether an exclusive licensee alone has standng for a lawsuit, we can look whether a co-owner alone has standing in the same situation. Unfortunately, however, current Korean law is not clear on the standing of a co-owner alone. Therefore, to determine standing of an exclusive licensee, we must wait until the standing issue of a co-owner be resolved.
참고문헌 (46)
- 정진근, "특허권의 본질과 한계에 관한 연구 ―공개의무와 정보개시의무를 중심으로―", 창작과 권리, (50), pp.2~21 (2008), 세창출판사
- 배대헌, "지적재산권개념의 형성ㆍ발전", 지적소유권법연구제집 (1998)
- 나종갑, "특허의 본질에 관한 연구", 산업재산권, (17), pp.31~72 (2005), 한국산업재산권법학회
- 손경한, "특허권의 본질, in 신특허법론" (2005), 법영사
- 정차호, "특허의 침해금지권에 관한 eBay 판결 : 특허권의 몰락?", 지식재산21 (2006), 특허청
- 정차호, "특허청의 착오로 잘못 등록된 PCT 자기지정 특허의 유효 여부", 성균관법학, 20(3), pp.1167~1188 (2008), 법학연구소
- Mark A. Lemley, "Reconceiving Patents in the Age of Venture Capital", J. Small & Emerging Bus. L., 4, pp.137~ (2000)
- F. Scott Kieff, "Property Rights and Property Rules for Commercializing Inventions", Minn. L. Rev., 85, pp.697~ (2001)
- Mark A. Lemley, "Ex Ante Versus Ex Post Justifications for Intellectual Property", U. Chi. L. Rev., 71, pp.129~ (2004)
- 천효남, "특허법(제9판)" (2003), 법경사
- 中山信弘, "注解 特許法 第3版 上卷", pp.312~ (2000), 靑林書院
- 신재호, "특허권 효력에 관한 검토 - Patent Troll의 남용적 권리행사에 대한 효력 제한 방안을 중심으로 -", 산업재산권, (30), pp.105~147 (2009), 한국산업재산권법학회
- 이인철, "이용발명에 관한 연구", 석사, pp.1989
- 김관식, "지적재산권 상호간의 이용 · 저촉관계와 그 통일적 해석방안", 고려법학, (49), pp.545~566 (2007), 법학연구원
- 이수완, "특허성판단과 특허침해판단과의 관계", 창작과 권리, pp.76~ (1996)
- Adam Mossoff, "Exclusion and Exclusive Use in Patent Law", Harv. J.L. & Tech., 22, pp.321~ (2009)
- 国家知识产权局条法司, "华人民共和国行政许可法", pp.6~ (2004)
- 김황식, "민법주해(IV)(곽윤직 편) 물권(1)" (1992), 박영사
- 곽윤직, "물권법", pp.13~ (2009), 박영사
- 곽윤직, "민법총칙", pp.168~ (2009), 박영사
- 배대헌, "거래대상으로서 디지털 정보와 ‘물건’개념 확대에 관한 검토", 商事判例硏究, 14 (2003), 한국상사판례학회
- 김원준, "특허법원론", pp.470~ (2009), 박영사
- 이경란, "특허법 제6판", pp.585~ (2008), 한빛지적소유권센터
- 임병웅, "이지 특허법", pp.579~ (2007), 한빛지적소유권센터
- 손경한, "신특허법론", pp.15~ (2005), 법영사
- 천효남, "특허법 제11판", pp.603~, 법경사
- 황종환, "특허법 제11판", pp.501~ (2006), 한빛지적소유권센터
- 김대정, "채권총론", pp.4~ (2006), 피데스
- 송덕수, "민법주해(Ⅷ)(곽윤직 편) 물권(1)", pp.7~ (1992), 박영사
- 조성민, "주석민법 물권(1)", pp.33~ (2000), 한국사법행정학회
- 김준호, "물권법", pp.10~ (2007), 법문사
- 김상용, "주석민법물권(1)", pp.49~ (2001), 한국사법행정학회
- 홍성재, "물권법", pp.5~ (2006), 대영문화사
- Brian G. Brunsvold, "Drafting Patent License Agreements 4th Ed.", pp.18~ (2002)
- Thomas W. Merrill, "Property and the Right to Exclude", 77 Neb. L. Rev. 730, pp.730~
- Pauline Newman, "Principles of Patent Law 2d ed.", pp.76~77 (2001)
- 後藤晴男, "特許權者·專用實施權者の各損害額の算定", ジュリスト, (86), pp.200~ (1985)
- Dennis Campbell, "World Intellectual Property Rights and Remedies" (2009), Oceana
- 조영선, "특허실시권자의 손해배상 및 금지청구권", 저스티스, (110), pp.83~120 (2009), 한국법학원
- The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, "CIPA Guide to the Patents Acts, 6th ed." (2009), Sweet & Maxwell
- Ronald E. Dimock, "Intellectual Property Disputes Resolutions & Remedies", pp.14~17 (2004), Carswell
- 윤기승, "특허심판과 심결취소송에서의 당사자적격에 관한 연구:특허법 제139조의 공동심판을 중심으로", 박사, pp.2009
- 신혜은, "특허권의 공유에 관한 비교법적고찰 및 실무상 유의점", 산업재산권, (23), pp.313~348 (2007), 한국산업재산권법학회
- 권태복, "공유특허권의 실시와 이전에 관한 쟁점과 제언", 법학논총, 29(2), pp.83~121 (2009), 법학연구소
- 강신하, "특허권 공유의 성립 및 법적성질과 관련된 제문제", 중앙법학, 11(3), pp.435~463 (2009), 중앙법학회
- Who Licenses out Patents and Why?: Lessons from a Business Survey, "Pluvia Zuniga, M.", OECD publishing, ~, pp.OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2009, 5