지식재산 라이선스 거절의 경쟁법 위반 여부에 관한 판단 - - 미국의 규정 및 사례와의 비교를 중심으로

Abstract

Intellectual property rights holders monopolize the right to use intellectual property despite competition laws, and this exclusivity prevents them from using intellectual property without the permission of intellectual property rights holders. However, this exclusivity may be illegalized or restricted if it is limited by the purpose of the law or the affects of market competition in relation to competition laws. In this respect, the act of an intellectual property owner refusing a license to another person for his or her intellectual property is a legitimate exercise of rights, but if he or she refuses unfairly, it may violate the Competition Act. Our competition law has prepared guidelines for unfair exercise to deal with these problems, but it is gradually making it difficult to reject licenses, and the method of judgment is not clear. In addition, the problems related to the recent FRAND standard patent or market-dominant intellectual property rights holder's license rejection has been raised. Compared to the basic direction and validity review method for refusal of intellectual property licenses under U.S. law, the refusal of intellectual property licenses should, in principle, not be prevented because it is the exercise of rights of intellectual property holders. Most attempts to prevent license rejection are considered in connection with other acts, and pure license rejection is not a violation of competition law unless it has culpability or the purpose of conspiracy. In addition, refusal of intellectual property licenses requires judgment based on the four stages of rationality - the existence of anti-competitive effects, justification for promoting competition, achievement of objectives by alternatives, balance of anti-competitive and pro-competitive effects, and a flexible approach is needed to refer to the potential impact of incentives on future innovation and damage to overall competition.