특허성 판단 관련 사후고찰 및 역교시 사례연구
Case Study on Hindsight and Teaching-Away Regarding Patentability Determinations
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
A person who decides patentability of an invention must essentially and beforehand understand the invention. However, unfortunately, after the understanding, the decider cannot be free from hindsight bias. A proclaim against the decider that such hindsight is not allowed normally does not make an effective result. This paper investigates real cases where an applicant or a patentee showed objective evidences and patentability was admitted. Through such case study, we may learn the way to proclaim hindsight and hopefully may utilize the way in future similar cases. Investigating eight real cases, this paper concludes that: (1) various explicit, negative expressions can be basis of hindsight proclaims, (2) implicit expressions or conventional wisdom of prior art, etc. can also be basis of hindsight proclaims, (3) proclaim of hindsight can be applied in novelty determinations as well, and (4) a prior art must not be altered in novelty determinations. If an applicant or a patentee provides such evidence of hindsight or teaching-away, relevant inventions must be presumed to have patentability.
Abstract
A person who decides patentability of an invention must essentially and beforehand understand the invention. However, unfortunately, after the understanding, the decider cannot be free from hindsight bias. A proclaim against the decider that such hindsight is not allowed normally does not make an effective result. This paper investigates real cases where an applicant or a patentee showed objective evidences and patentability was admitted. Through such case study, we may learn the way to proclaim hindsight and hopefully may utilize the way in future similar cases. Investigating eight real cases, this paper concludes that: (1) various explicit, negative expressions can be basis of hindsight proclaims, (2) implicit expressions or conventional wisdom of prior art, etc. can also be basis of hindsight proclaims, (3) proclaim of hindsight can be applied in novelty determinations as well, and (4) a prior art must not be altered in novelty determinations. If an applicant or a patentee provides such evidence of hindsight or teaching-away, relevant inventions must be presumed to have patentability.
참고문헌 (22)
- 특허청, "특허·실용신안 심사지침서", 53~ (2009)
- 신혜은, "최근 진보성관련 판례동향 및 객관적 판단기준을 위한 제안", 법학논총, 30(3), pp.177~212 (2010), 법학연구소
- Emer Simic, "The TSM Test is Dead! Long Live the TSM Test! The Aftermath of KSR, What was All the Fuss About?", AIPLA Q.J, 37(227), pp.253~ (2009)
- 유영선, "비교대상발명에 출원발명의 파라미터 구성요소가 명시적으로 나타나 있지 않으나 비교대상설명 역시 그러한 구성요소를 가질 것으로 추정된다는 이유로 출원발명의 신규성 및 진보성을 부정한 사례, In 지적재산권", pp.62~63 (2008), 한국지적재산권법제연구원
- 정차호, "특허유효추정원칙: Microsoft v. i4i 판례 평석", 성균관법학, 23(3), pp.987~1018 (2011), 법학연구소
- Andrew Sharples, "Duncan Curley, Experimental novelty:Synthon v SmithKline Beecham", E.I.P.R, 28(5), pp.310~ (2006)
- 정차호, "선택발명의 신규성 - 선행기술의 개시 요건 및 용이실시 요건 -", 법조, 61(3)통권 : 666, pp.188~252 (2012), 법조협회
- "AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac and Ugine,344 F.3d 1234, 1244", ~
- 정차호, "선택발명의 신규성 - 선행기술의 개시 요건 및 용이실시 요건 -", 법조, 61(3)통권 : 666, pp.188~252 (2012), 법조협회
- Lance Leonard Barry, "Teaching a Way is Not Teaching Away", J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 79(867) (1997)
- Tom Brody, "Claim Construction Using Contexts of Implication", Va. J.L. & Tech, 13(3) (2008)
- 특허청, "특허･실용신안 심사지침서", 3216~ (2011)
- "두산백과사전"[URL]
- Lance Leonard Barry, "Teaching A Way is Not Teaching Away", J. Pat. & Trademark Off.Soc'y, 79(867) (1997)
- "에너지경제 2012년 8월 16일 기사", ~ (2012)
- 황영주, "특허의 진보성 판단에 관한 각국 기준의 개괄적 비교, In 특허법원 개원10주년 기념논문집", pp.133~ (2008), 특허법원
- "Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997)", ~