직무발명보상금 산정에서의 대상 직무발명의 ‘기여도’ 산정법리
The Employee Inventions Apportionment Ratio Calculation Jurisprudence in Calculating Employee Invention Remuneration
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
이 글은 직무발명보상금 산정에서 기여도를 적용하는 법리를 탐구하였다. 그 탐구의 결과물은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 우리나라 및 일본의 실무에서 가장 큰 문제점은 기여도를 실시료율 및/또는 독점권기여율(초과매출율)에서 다른 요소와 섞어서 산정하는 소위 ‘잡탕식’ 산정방식이 자주 적용된다는 것이다. 그렇게 섞어서 적당히 산정됨에 따라 기여도가 적절히 반영되지도 못하고 기여도 법리가 발전하지도 못한다. 이 글은 기여도의 별도 산정의 중요성을 강조한다. 특히, 대상 제품이 복잡제품인 경우 기여도는 반드시 별도로 산정되어야 한다. 둘째, 직무발명보상금 산정에서의 합리적인 기여도 산정방법을 모색하기 위하여 특허권 침해에 대한 손해배상액 산정에서의 기여도 법리 및 표준필수특허의 기여도 산정을 위한 하향식(top-down) 산정방법을 분석하였다. 나아가, 일본의 선행자료가 소개하는 몇 개 방법도 살펴보았다. 일본의 몇 개 방법은 실무적으로 활용될 가능성이 낮다고 보았고, 앞의 두 방식은 활용될 수 있는 것이다. 셋째, 표준필수특허에서 실시료과적(royalty over-stacking)의 문제를 해결하는데 하향식(top-down) 산정방법이 적절하듯이, 직무발명에서도 보상금과적(remuneration over-stacking)의 문제를 해결하는데 하향식 산정방법이 적절하다. 그래서, 대상 제품에 적용된 다른 유효한 기술의 수와 대상 직무발명의 수를 비교하고, 대상 직무발명의 상대적 중요도(가중치)를 감안하는 방식이 적용되어야 하는 것이다. 넷째, 하향식 산정방식이 적절하지 않은 경우에는 전체 제품을 기준으로 하여 그것에 기여도를 곱하는 방식과 해당 부품을 기준으로 하여 그것에 기여도를 곱하는 방식을 법원이 주어진 사안에 맞게 선택하여 사용할 수 있을 것이다. 당연히 복잡제품에서는 부품의 가격을 기준으로 하되 그것에 기여도를 추가로 곱할 수 있을 것이다. 다섯째, 기여도를 산정함에 있어서 기여도와 무관한 요소가 같이 고려되는 사례가 많은데, 그러한 오류는 되풀이 되지 않아야 한다. 특히, 기여도는 기술에 관한 사항이므로, 기술과 무관한 사항을 기여도 산정에서 고려하지 않아야 한다.
Abstract
This Article has studied the jurisprudence to apply apportionment ratio in calculating employee invention remuneration. The results of the study are as the followings. Firstly, the biggest problem in Korean and Japanese practices is that a so called “mixed” calculation method is often applied, under which an apportionment ratio is mixed and calculated with other factors in calculating royalty rate and/or excessive sales rate. Because of such mixed and inadequate calculation, an apportionment ratio is not properly reflected and apportionment ratio jurisprudence does not develop. This Article emphasizes importance of a separate calculation of an apportionment ratio. Especially, if the product at issue is a complex product, an apportionment ratio should be calculated separately. Secondly, this Article, to seek a reasonable apportionment ratio calculation method in calculating employee invention remuneration, has analyzed the apportionment ratio jurisprudence in damages calculation in a patent infringement suit and the top-down calculation method used for calculating apportionment ratio of a standard essential patent. In addition, a few more methods introduced in Japanese precedent studies have been scrutinized. I have concluded that such Japanese methods do not have such a possibility to be applied in practice, and that the former two methods could be exploited. Thirdly, as a top-down calculation method is appropriate to solve the problem of royalty over-stacking in a standard essential patent, in an employee invention as well top-down calculation method is appropriate to solve the problem of remuneration over-stacking. Therefore, such a method shall be applied, under which number of other effecive techonologies applied in the product at issue is being compared with number of employee inventions of the plaintiff, and comparitive importandce of the employee inventions would be considered. Fourthly, in a situation where a top-down calculation method is not appropriate, the court may, under given fact pattern, choose either (1) a total product is being a starting point and an apportionment ratio is applied to it or (2) a component to which the employee invention was applied is being a starting point and an apportionment ratio is applied to it. Naturally, for a complex product, a component shall be a starting point and an apportionment ratio would be multiplied thereof. Fifthly, there have been many cases where irrelevant factors have been considered in calculation an apportionment ratio. Such errors should not be repeated. Especially, an apportionment ratio is a matter regarding technology, such non-technological matters should not be considered in apportionment ratio calculation.
참고문헌 (49)
- 주현재, "특허법상 손해배상액 산정에 있어서 기여도 증명책임의 소재", 지식재산연구, 13(1), pp.1~52 (2018), 한국지식재산연구원[DOI]
- 정차호, "특허권 침해에 대한 손해배상액 산정에 있어서의 기여도(apportionment ratio) 산정 법리", 정보법학, 21(3), pp.83~123 (2017), 한국정보법학회
- 정차호, "특허권침해 손해배상액 산정의 기초(base): 전체시장가치원칙, 최소판매가능부품원칙 및 기여도배분원칙의 상황별 적용", 법학연구, 22(2), pp.243~270 (2014), 법학연구소
- 한국특허법학회, "직무발명제도 해설" (2015), 박영사
- 萼優美, "改訂工業所有権法解説［四法編］" (1982), ぎょうせい
- 飯村敏明, "知的財産関係訴訟(リーガル · プログレッシブ ·シリーズ3)" (2008), 青林書院
- 田村善之, "職務発明" (2005), 有斐閣
- 田村善之, "使用者が職務発明を自己実施している場合の『使用者等が受け るべき利益の額』の算定手法について－実施許諾を併用している場 合の処理－", 知的財産法政策学研究, 27 (2010)
- 竹田稔, "知的財産権侵害要論" (2007), 発明協会
- 北村博, "企業内発明者の動機づけとしての金銭的処遇および非金銭的処遇 に関する研究", 博士, 政策研究科, pp.2016
- 北村博, "職務発明に係わる特許の寄与率と実施e：現状と検討", CUC policy studies review (2012)
- 中西淳, "知的財 産権・損害論の理論と実務" (2012), 株式会社商事 法務
- 窪田充見, "被害者の素因と寄与度概念の検討不法行為法上の損害賠償額 決定過程についての一考察", 判3タイムズ, (558) (1985)
- 特許第2委員会第1小委員会, "特許が製品の一部にかかわる場合の損害賠償 額の算定について―特許法102 条における寄与率等の概念と主張の あり方に関する考察―", 知財管理, 59(11) (2009), 日本知的財 産協会
- 特許庁, "標準必須特許のライセンス交渉に関する手引き", 事業に対する特許の貢献度評価"の実用化 研究について, ~ (2015)
- 正木美穂子, "意匠の寄与率に関する事3研究", パテントメディア, (106) (2016)
- 江藤聡明, "特許請求の範囲の記載の仕方と寄与率と損害額-損害額算定の 基礎, クレーム記載の発明の本質, 寄与率の相関関係", 発明の本質, 4 (2006), 栄国際特許事務所
- 金田重郎, "大規模アプリケーションシステムにおける特許の実 施e率について", パテント, 55(5) (2002)
- "American Law Reports, Factors to be considered in determining a “reasonable royalty” for purposes of calculating damages for patent infringement under", A.L.R. Fed, 35, pp.186~ (1984)
- Anne-Layne Farrar, "The Patent Damages Gap: An Economist's Review of U.S. Patent Damages Apportionment Rules", ~ (2017)
- Anne-Layne Farrar, "The Practicalites and Pitfalls of the Smallest Saleable Patent Practicing Unit Doctrine: A Review of Teece and Sherry, les Nouvelles" (2016)
- 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)
- Eric E. Bensen, "Apportionment of Lost Profits in Contemporary Patent Damages Cases", Va. J.L. & Tech, 10, pp.8~ (2005)
- Eric E. Bensen, "Using Apportionment to Rein in the Georgia-Pacific Factors", Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev, 9, pp.1~ (2007)
- Fei Deng, "Comparative Analysis of Court-Determined Frand Royalty Rates", Antitrust, (Summer) (2018)
- Imran Khaliq, "So Now What? $368 Million Jury Damages Patent Award Nixed for Failure to Apportion", Intell. Prop. & Tech. L.J, 26(12), pp.14~ (2014)
- J. Gregory Sidak, "Apportionment, FRAND Royalties, and Comparable Licenses After Ericsson v. D-Link", U. Ill. L. Rev, pp.1809~ (2016)
- 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)
- Jason R. Bartlett, "Rationalizing Frand Royalties: Can Interpleader Save the Internet of Things?", Rev. Litig, 36, pp.285~ (2017)
- John W. Schlicher, "Measuring Patent Damages by the Market Value of Inventions--the Grain Processing, Rite-Hite, and Aro Rules", J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 82, pp.503~ (2000)
- Jonathan D. Putnam, "Economic Determinations in "Frand Rate"-Setting: A Guide for the Perplexed", Fordham Int'l L.J, 41, pp.953~ (2018)
- The Smallest Salable Patent-Practicing Unit(SSPPU) : Theory and Evidence, "Jonathan Putnam", ~ (2016)
- Jonathan T. Tomlin, "The Accuracy and Manipulability of Lost Profits Damages Calculations: Should the Trier of Fact Be “Reasonably Certain?”", Transactions: Tenn. J. Bus. L, 7, pp.295~ (2006)
- Josh Friedman, "Apportionment: Shining the Light of Day on Patent Damages", Case W. Res. L. Rev, 63, pp.147~ (2012)
- Karen D. McDaniel, "Damages in the Post-Rite Hite Era: Convoyed Sales Illustrate the Dichotomy in Current Damages Law", J. Pat & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 78, pp.461~ (1996)
- Kirti Gupta, "Technology Standards and Competition in the Mobile Wireless Industry", Geo. Mason L. Rev, 22, pp.865~ (2016)
- Kristen Jakobsen Osenga, "Ignorance over Innovation: Why Misunderstanding Standard Setting Organizations Will Hinder Technological Progress", U. Louisville L. Rev, 56, pp.159~ (2018)
- Marcus Schönknecht, "Determination of Patent Damages in Germany, IIC, Volume 43" (2012)
- An Economic Approach to the “Balance of Hardships” and “Public Interest' Tests for Preliminary Injunction Motions in Patent Infringement Cases, "Marion B. Stewart", ~, pp.SF18 ALI-ABA
- Mark A. Lemley, "Professor, Stanford Law School, Panel 2 at the Federal Trade Commission Hearing at the University of California", The Evolving IP Marketplace, 216 (2009)
- Mark S. Holmes, "Patent Licensing: Strategy, Negotiation, Forms § 4.6.4" (2007)
- Mark Schankerman, "How Valuable Is Patent Protection? Estimates by Technology Field", RAND J. Econ, 29, pp.77~ (1998)
- Matthew C. Holohan, "Making Sense of Apportionment in Patent Damages: Strategy in the Face of Uncertainty, Colo. Law" (2015)
- Michael Trimborn, "Employees’ Inventions in Germany" (2009), Wolters Kluwer
- Ned L. Conley, "An Economic Approach to Patent Damages", AIPLA Q.J, 15, pp.354~ (1987)
- Patrick J. Flinn, "Handbook of Intell. Prop. Claims & Remedies, s. 6.04" (2017), Aspen Publishers
- Steven M. Amundson, "Apportionment and the Entire Market Value Rule Have Presented Problems in Practice When Determining the Value of a Patented Invention", Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J, 23, pp.1~ (2014)
- Zelin Yang, "Damaging Royalties: An Overview of Reasonable Royalty Damages", Berkeley Tech. L.J, 29, pp.647~ (2014)