특허권의 부당한 행사에 대한 규제 - 비실시특허권자의 특허침해금지청구권의 남용을 중심으로 -
A Study on Regulation of Patent Misuse - Focused on the Non-Practicing Entities's abuse of request for injunction against infringement -
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In today's knowledge-based society, an invention, the product of the creativity of human beings, is the source of the most important assets and such creativity has lead innovation in the community. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of intellectual property law can be described to be as the promotion of 'public interests' by constant innovation. However, focusing on legal claims on the owner's rights of patent rather than a means of innovation, they force the related parties to stand in the court waging the wasteful patent war instead of making efforts in laboratories or offices to develop and innovate technology. One of the most controversial issues is patent misuse of NPEs. The patent owner who do not have production facilities and sales organizations can abuse of request for injunction against infringement to obtain huge profits through the litigation, namely to impose an excessive royalty. Korea Patent Law §126(1) provides that patent owners or exclusive licensees can claim for in case that someone infringes or is likely to infringe his right. Also §126(2) reads that patent owners or exclusive licensees can claim for the shutdown of things setting up the infringement, the elimination of the facilities provided for the infringement and the necessary actions for the prevention of infringements. It, however, doesn't have equity rule like US patent law §283. So far it doesn't seem that Korean courts have considered patent owner's act as a patent abuse and rejected his claim for the prohibition of infringements. Thus, in such cases, we can apply the general law, the civil law that is complementary to the patent law. In case that a patentee exercises his rights out of the purpose of patent law, courts should ask the other party only to prove the objective requirements that there is significant imbalance between right owner's interests and the other's harmed interests and have the judgement considering the interests of the protection of individual right and all the surroundings. Therefore, if someone like patent troll claims for the prohibition of infringements to pursuit interests out of scope of patent law, his claims should be denied under abuse of right rule in the civil law.
Abstract
In today's knowledge-based society, an invention, the product of the creativity of human beings, is the source of the most important assets and such creativity has lead innovation in the community. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of intellectual property law can be described to be as the promotion of 'public interests' by constant innovation. However, focusing on legal claims on the owner's rights of patent rather than a means of innovation, they force the related parties to stand in the court waging the wasteful patent war instead of making efforts in laboratories or offices to develop and innovate technology. One of the most controversial issues is patent misuse of NPEs. The patent owner who do not have production facilities and sales organizations can abuse of request for injunction against infringement to obtain huge profits through the litigation, namely to impose an excessive royalty. Korea Patent Law §126(1) provides that patent owners or exclusive licensees can claim for in case that someone infringes or is likely to infringe his right. Also §126(2) reads that patent owners or exclusive licensees can claim for the shutdown of things setting up the infringement, the elimination of the facilities provided for the infringement and the necessary actions for the prevention of infringements. It, however, doesn't have equity rule like US patent law §283. So far it doesn't seem that Korean courts have considered patent owner's act as a patent abuse and rejected his claim for the prohibition of infringements. Thus, in such cases, we can apply the general law, the civil law that is complementary to the patent law. In case that a patentee exercises his rights out of the purpose of patent law, courts should ask the other party only to prove the objective requirements that there is significant imbalance between right owner's interests and the other's harmed interests and have the judgement considering the interests of the protection of individual right and all the surroundings. Therefore, if someone like patent troll claims for the prohibition of infringements to pursuit interests out of scope of patent law, his claims should be denied under abuse of right rule in the civil law.
참고문헌 (30)
- 곽윤직, "-총칙(I)" (2000), 박영사
- 박성수, "한국의 특허권 남용 규제", LAW & TECHNOLOGY, 3(1) (2007), 서울대학교 기술과법센터
- 박영우, "권리남용금지 법리에 관한 연구", 법학연구, 8(1) (1997), 충남대학교 법학연구소
- 박정희, "특허침해소송 등에서 당해 특허의 무효사유에 대하여 심리판단할 수 있는지 여부", 지식재산21, (91) (2005), 특허청
- 백태승, "민법총칙(개정판)" (2004), 법문사
- 백형기, "지적재산권법과 독점규제법의 충돌과 조화", 정보화정책, 13(4), pp.37~51 (2006), 한국정보화진흥원
- 손경한, "신특허법론" (2005), 법영사
- 송덕수, "신민법강의" (2008), 박영사
- 송영식, "지적소유권법(상)(제8판)" (2003), 육법사
- 신재호, "특허권 효력에 관한 검토 - Patent Troll의 남용적 권리행사에 대한 효력 제한 방안을 중심으로", 산업재산권, (30), pp.105~147 (2009), 한국산업재산권법학회
- 안원모, "무효사유가 존재하는 특허권의 행사와 권리남용의 항변", 산업재산권, (27), pp.209~260 (2008), 한국산업재산권법학회
- 윤권순, "특허괴물의 현상 분석과 특허제도의 본질에 대한 고찰", 창작과 권리, (58), pp.1~39 (2010), 세창출판사
- 이경규, "지적재산권 남용의 규제와 독점규제법의 적용에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2001
- 이동형, "權利濫用에 있어서 主觀的 要件의 必要性", 저스티스, (107), pp.5~37 (2008), 한국법학원
- 이두형, "특허권 침해 관련 법적 공격·방어수단에 관한 고찰", 사법논집, 43 (2006), 법원도서관
- 이상경, "지적재산권소송법" (1998), 육법사
- 정상조, "지적재산권법" (2004), 홍문사
- 정연덕, "특허권의 남용과 이에 대한 방안", 산업재산권, (22), pp.69~100 (2007), 한국산업재산권법학회
- 정진근, "컴퓨터프로그램보호법의 목적에 관한 소고", 창작과 권리, 46, pp.88~117 (2007), 세창출판사
- 정차호, "특허의 침해금지권에 관한 eBay판결: 특허권의 몰락", 지식재산21, (96) (2006), 특허청
- 조영선, "특허법" (2006), 박영사
- 미국판례법으로서의 저작권남용항변에 관한 연구, "최은희", 컴퓨터프로그램심의조정위원회, ~ (2004)
- 주요 Patent Troll 현황보고서, "한국특허정보원", ~ (2006)
- BM특허와 공공정책, "한현옥", 한국경제연구원, ~ (2004)
- 황종환, "특허법(제11판)" (2004), 한빛지적소유권센터
- Carl Shapiro, "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting. In: Innovation Policy And The Economy 1" (2001), MIT Press
- Martin J. Adelman, "Cases and Materials on Patent Law. In: 2nd Edition, American Casebook Series" (2003), Thomson West
- Robert P. Merges, "Economic of Intellectual Property Law. In: On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope" (2007), Edward Elgar Publishing
- U.S. Department of Justice, "Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Inno- vation and Competition", 4~ (2007)
- 日本 特許廳, "特許權の效力の見直しについて", 第2回特許制度硏究會資料 (2009)
