객관적 지표(Objective Indicia)에 기한 발명의 진보성 판단론
Inventive step decision through Objective Indicia
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
It is integral to avoid the subjective and hindsight bias in determining inventive step. For this goal, Europe and the U.S. have had various lists of objective indications to imply inventive step of inventions. After KSR (2007) decision, the importance of secondary factors are being revisited and emphasized further in the U.S. to substitute the old anti-hindsight bias resolutions: TSM test. In addition, some recent studies propose new objective indicia to decide the Non-obviousness. Among them are the theory of ‘Timing approach' and ‘Cost-Benefit approach'. Some scholars contend that the court could reshape patent system for industry specific manner using Non-obviousness determination as policy leverage. In Europe, generally objective indicia are qualified equal with technical evaluation in inventive step decision. On the other hand, in Korea, the consideration of secondary factors takes very feeble portion in inventive step determination and is even being ignored in practice, which is far from reasonability. Referring to the lessons of American and European experiences and updated studies, it is desirable for Korean courts to give much more stress upon the objective indicia in inventive step determination than the present.
Abstract
It is integral to avoid the subjective and hindsight bias in determining inventive step. For this goal, Europe and the U.S. have had various lists of objective indications to imply inventive step of inventions. After KSR (2007) decision, the importance of secondary factors are being revisited and emphasized further in the U.S. to substitute the old anti-hindsight bias resolutions: TSM test. In addition, some recent studies propose new objective indicia to decide the Non-obviousness. Among them are the theory of ‘Timing approach' and ‘Cost-Benefit approach'. Some scholars contend that the court could reshape patent system for industry specific manner using Non-obviousness determination as policy leverage. In Europe, generally objective indicia are qualified equal with technical evaluation in inventive step decision. On the other hand, in Korea, the consideration of secondary factors takes very feeble portion in inventive step determination and is even being ignored in practice, which is far from reasonability. Referring to the lessons of American and European experiences and updated studies, it is desirable for Korean courts to give much more stress upon the objective indicia in inventive step determination than the present.
참고문헌 (25)
- Gregory N. Mandel, "Patently Non-Obvious: Empirical Demonstration that the Hindsight Bias Renders Patent Decisions Irrational", Ohio St. L.J., 67 (2006)
- Gregory N. Mandel, "Patently Non-Obvious Ⅱ: Experimental Study on the Hindsight Issue Before the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex", Yale J.L. & Tech, 9 (2007)
- Gregory N. Mandel, "The NonObvious Problem: How the Indeterminate Nonobviousness Standard Produces Excessive Patent Grants", UC Davis L. Rev, 42 (2008)
- Gregory N. Mandel, "Another Missed Opportunity: The Supreme court's failure to define Nonobviousness or combat hindsight bias in KSR v. TELEFLEX", Louis & Clark L. Rev, 12 (2008)
- Paul Cole, "KSR and Standard of Inventive Step: A European View", J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L., 8, pp.14~ (2008)
- Daralyn J. Durie, "A realistic approach to the obviousness of inventions", William and Mary L. Rev, 50 (2008)
- "Twenty-Five Years of Patent Law in IIC, 26 IIC 752" (1995)[URL]
- "Evaluation of the "Inventive Step" in the European Patent System-More Objective Standards Needed, part two, 9 IIC 121" (1978)[URL]
- Richard Hacon, "Concise European Patent Law" (2007), KLUWER LAW international
- Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, "Nonobviousness: A Comment On the Three Learned Papers", Lewis & Clark L. Rew, 12 (2008)
- Amanda Wieker, "Secondary Considerations Should Be Given Increased Weight in Obviousness Inquiries Under 35 U.S.C. §103 in the Post- KSR v. Teleflex World", The Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 17(5) (2008)
- John F. Duffy, "A Timing Approach to Patentability", Lewis & Clark L. Rev, 12(2) (2008)
- Robert P. Merges, "Commercial Success and Patent Standards: Economic Perspectives on Innovation", Cal. L. Rev, 76 (1988)
- "To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy" (2003)[URL]
- Joseph Scott Miller, "Level of Skill And Long-Felt Need: Notes on A Forgotten Future", Lewis & Clark L. Rev, 12 (2008)
- Mark Lemley, "Should Patent Infringement Require Proof of Copying?", MICH. L. REV, 105 (2007)
- Tun-Jen Chiang, "A Cost-Benefit Approach to Patent Obviousness", Saint John's L. Rev, 82 (2008)
- Dan L. Burk, "Policy Levers in Patent Law", Virginia L. Rev, 89 (2003)
- Andrew Blair-Stanek, "Increased Market Power As a New Secondary Consideration in Patent Law", American University L. Rev, 58 (2008)
- "Courts and the Patent System"[URL]
- "EPO Guideline"[URL]
- アインゼル, "間接事情(セカンダリーコンシデレーション）を考慮する EPOやドイツの進步性判斷の手法を日本においても採用することにいてのー考察", パテント, 63(5) (2010)
- "日本 特許廳 特許․実用新案審査基準" (2010)[URL]
- 한동수, "심결취소소송에서 주지관용기술의 증명방법 및 발명의 진보성 판단시 2차적 고려사항", 대법원 판례해설, (76) (2008)
- "특허ㆍ실용신안 심사지침서, 특허청", ~ (2009)