특허침해에 대한 손해배상액으로서 실시료 상당액
The Reasonable royalties as Patent Infringement Damages
0
조회
0
다운로드
8
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article studies the reasonable royalties as damages for patent infringements. Korea patent law Article 128 is for calculating damages in patent infringements. Article 128 (3) provides for patent holder may claim usual amount of a royalty for use of the patented invention for damages. The resonable royalty of this paragraph is considered for non-exclusive licensing. In the case, non-manufacturing patent owners who can't prove the pecuniary loss are only possible to claim royalties for non-exclusive licensing. As a result, the case the agreements for legal contracts had occurred is same to the case illegal infringements occurred. Considering the possibility the patent infringements are not found and the cost patent owners should pay for suits, this may effect as an incentive for patent infringements. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to discuss the meaning and the need for revision of Korea Patent Law Article 128 (3). Therefore, this paper introduces regulations and cases in Korea and other country, America, Japan, etc.. In Japan, the word 'usual' was deleted in the paragraph of Article 102 (3) for Japan patent law at 1998 Patent Law Reform. The paragraph had corresponded to Korea Patent Law Article 128 (3). Due to the deletion, it became clear that reasonable royalties are not limited for non-exclusive licensing and reasonable royalties damages can be calculated more amount than non-exclusive royalties considering individual and specific situations. 35 U.S.C. 284 provides for "damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty". Courts interpreting this provision have divided patent damages into two groups- lost profits, available to patent owners who would have made sales in the absence of infringements, and reasonable royalties, a fallback remedy for every else. Traditionally, patentees want to prove lost profits because only that measure captures the monopoly value of excluding competitors from the market. As the statutory language suggests, reasonable royalties exist as a floor or backstop for those who cannot prove that they have lost profits as a result of infringement. The rationale is that an infringed patent is valuable and could be licensed for a fee even by patent owners who don’t employ the patent in the marketplace. US courts determine the reasonable royalties by established royalties and Georgia Pacific factors. With reference to the above-mentioned, this paper proposes the word 'usual' should deleted in Korea patent law Article 128 (3) and considering individual and specific facts damages should be calculated no event less than a royalty for non-exclusive licensing.
Abstract
This article studies the reasonable royalties as damages for patent infringements. Korea patent law Article 128 is for calculating damages in patent infringements. Article 128 (3) provides for patent holder may claim usual amount of a royalty for use of the patented invention for damages. The resonable royalty of this paragraph is considered for non-exclusive licensing. In the case, non-manufacturing patent owners who can't prove the pecuniary loss are only possible to claim royalties for non-exclusive licensing. As a result, the case the agreements for legal contracts had occurred is same to the case illegal infringements occurred. Considering the possibility the patent infringements are not found and the cost patent owners should pay for suits, this may effect as an incentive for patent infringements. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to discuss the meaning and the need for revision of Korea Patent Law Article 128 (3). Therefore, this paper introduces regulations and cases in Korea and other country, America, Japan, etc.. In Japan, the word 'usual' was deleted in the paragraph of Article 102 (3) for Japan patent law at 1998 Patent Law Reform. The paragraph had corresponded to Korea Patent Law Article 128 (3). Due to the deletion, it became clear that reasonable royalties are not limited for non-exclusive licensing and reasonable royalties damages can be calculated more amount than non-exclusive royalties considering individual and specific situations. 35 U.S.C. 284 provides for "damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty". Courts interpreting this provision have divided patent damages into two groups- lost profits, available to patent owners who would have made sales in the absence of infringements, and reasonable royalties, a fallback remedy for every else. Traditionally, patentees want to prove lost profits because only that measure captures the monopoly value of excluding competitors from the market. As the statutory language suggests, reasonable royalties exist as a floor or backstop for those who cannot prove that they have lost profits as a result of infringement. The rationale is that an infringed patent is valuable and could be licensed for a fee even by patent owners who don’t employ the patent in the marketplace. US courts determine the reasonable royalties by established royalties and Georgia Pacific factors. With reference to the above-mentioned, this paper proposes the word 'usual' should deleted in Korea patent law Article 128 (3) and considering individual and specific facts damages should be calculated no event less than a royalty for non-exclusive licensing.
참고문헌 (26)
- 박성수, "특허침해로 인한 손해배상액의 산정" (2007), 경인문화사
- 손경한, "신특허법론" (2005), 법영사
- 박영규, "지적소유권법(상)(하)" (2008), 육법사
- 안원모, "특허권의 침해와 손해배상" (2005), 세창출판사
- 정차호, "특허권의 소멸과 실시료 지불 의무와의 관계", 성균관법학, 19(2), pp.221~238 (2007), 법학연구소
- 전효숙, "특허권 침해로 인한 손해배상", 저스티스, 30(1) (1997)
- 조영선, "특허의 무효를 둘러싼 민사상의 법률관계", 법조, 55(3), pp.61~112 (2006), 법조협회
- 조영선, "특허법(제3판)" (2011), 도서출판 박영사
- 지원림, "민법강의 제6판" (2008), 홍문사
- 최승재, "미국 판례상 특허침해와 손해배상액의 산정 ―2개의 마이크로소프트(Microsoft) 사건을 중심으로―", 창작과 권리, (62), pp.41~72 (2011), 세창출판사
- 최승재, "미국특허법" (2011), 법문사
- 한국특허법학회, "특허판례연구" (2010), 박영사
- 中山信弘, "特許法" (2001), 法文社
- 中山信弘, "註解特許法(上) 第3版" (2000), 靑林書院
- 田村善之, "知的財産権と損害賠償" (2004), 弘文堂
- 高林 龍, "知的財産權侵害と損害賠償" (2011), 成文堂
- Chisum, Donald S, "Principles Of Patent Law, 3rd ed" (2004), Foundation Press
- Epstein, Roy J, "Economic Analysis of the Reasonable Royalty: Simplification and Extension of the Georgia–Pacific Factors", J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 85, pp.555~ (2003)
- Goldscheider, Robert, "Use Of The 25 PerCent Rule in Valuing IP", les Nouvelles, 37, pp.123~ (2002)
- Kobylak, Wesley, "Factors to be considered in determining a "reasonable royalty" for purposes of calculating damages for patent infringe- ment under 35 U.S.C.A. § 284", A.L.R. Fed, 284, pp.186~ (1984)
- Lemley, Mark A., "Distinguishing Lost Profits From Reasonable Royalties", Wm. & Mary L. Rev, 51, pp.655~ (2009)
- Leonard, Gregory K, "Economic Approaches to Intellectual Property Policy, Litigation, and Management", PLI, 2008, pp.949, 425~
- Love, Brian J., "The Misuse of Reasonable Royalty Damages as a Patent Infringement Deterrent", Mo. L. Rev, 74, pp.909~ (2009)
- Mazzeo, Michael J, "Are Patent Infringement Awards Excessive?: The Data Behind the Patent Reform Debate" (2011)
- Tassinari, Vincent P., "Compiled Legislative History of 35 U.S.C. § 284: The Patent Compensation Statue", UWLA L. Rev, 31, pp.45~ (2000)
- Toikka, Richard S., "Patent Licensing Under Competitive and Non–Competitive Conditions", J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 82, pp.279~ (2000)
