본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

일본에서 특허의 유효성에 대한 중재가능성-킬비 판결(일본 특허법 제104조의3)을 중심으로-

The Possibility of Arbitration of Patent in Japan -focusing on Kilby case(Japanese Patent Act Article 104-3-

0

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류무역학

초록

According to Japanese Patent Act, the Japanese Patent Office, administrative organization, was authorized to decide validation of patent. However, Supreme Court of Japan held that a court is able to decide the invalidation of patent in 11th April, 2000, which caused the reform of Japanese Patent Act in June 2004. Reformed Patent Act established the article 104-3 and makes it for a court to decide the patentability where there are grounds for a patent invalidation. Through this amendment to the Patent Act, the legislative system to decide the patent validation has been reorganized and furthermore alleged infringer is allowed to argue against the patent validation by making use of infringement litigation procedure through defenses against patent invalidation as well as invalidation trial procedure for to file a request for a trial for patent invalidation to the Japanese Patent Office. That is to say, the article 104-3 was established in the Japanese Patent Act in the wake of Kilby, and thus a court, which is judicial authority, not administrative disposition agency is also able to decide the patent validation. Thus this article discuss how a court, the authority of which only patent infringement cases fell under, has been authorized to arbitrate cases about the patent validation and the decision of the patent validation in a court.

Abstract

According to Japanese Patent Act, the Japanese Patent Office, administrative organization, was authorized to decide validation of patent. However, Supreme Court of Japan held that a court is able to decide the invalidation of patent in 11th April, 2000, which caused the reform of Japanese Patent Act in June 2004. Reformed Patent Act established the article 104-3 and makes it for a court to decide the patentability where there are grounds for a patent invalidation. Through this amendment to the Patent Act, the legislative system to decide the patent validation has been reorganized and furthermore alleged infringer is allowed to argue against the patent validation by making use of infringement litigation procedure through defenses against patent invalidation as well as invalidation trial procedure for to file a request for a trial for patent invalidation to the Japanese Patent Office. That is to say, the article 104-3 was established in the Japanese Patent Act in the wake of Kilby, and thus a court, which is judicial authority, not administrative disposition agency is also able to decide the patent validation. Thus this article discuss how a court, the authority of which only patent infringement cases fell under, has been authorized to arbitrate cases about the patent validation and the decision of the patent validation in a court.

참고문헌 (15)

  1. 牧野利秋, "無効理由が存在することが明らかな特許権に基づく請求と権利の濫用 — キルビー事件", 別冊ジュリスト, (170), pp.168~169 (2004), 特許判例百選
  2. 特許庁, "工業所有権法逐条解説(第17版)", 特許法104条の3の解説部分, ~ (2008)
  3. 大友信秀, "侵害訴訟中における特許の有效性判斷(特許法第104條の3)の構造", パテント, 63(2) (2010)
  4. 浅井孝夫, "仲裁手続利用の得失" (2003), NBL
  5. 小林純子, "ダブルトラック問題に対する考え方改正提案に向けて", パテント, 63(8) (2010)
  6. 小池豊, "特許法104条の3の現状と今後の運用に関する私見", パテント, 63(8) (2010)
  7. 野村美明, "知的財産権に関する国際私法原則の一般規定", 日韓共同提案に向けた日本側研究グループ研究会 자료, ~ (2009)
  8. 中野俊一郎(神戸大学教授), "知的財産事件の国際裁判管轄-特許侵害事件を中心として-", 台湾司法院講演 자료, ~ (2009)
  9. 近藤岳, "特許法104条の3による請求棄却判決と上告審係属中に当該特許権について確定した訂正審判との関係:ナイフの加工装置事件", 知的財産法政策学研究 = Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal, 27, pp.187~220
  10. 三村量一, "特許関係訴訟における知財高裁の機能", 知的財産協会・日本 弁理士会・AIPPI共催国際シンポジウム 자료, ~ (2007)
  11. 村林  隆一, "特許法第104条の3の解釈論", パテント, 57(11) (2004)
  12. "第5回紛争処理小委員会 資料2", 第5回紛争処理小委員会 資料2, ~
  13. "第3回紛争処理小委員会資料 資料", 第3回紛争処理小委員会資料 資料, ~
  14. "第1回紛争処理小委員会参考資料", 第1回紛争処理小委員会参考資料, ~
  15. "最高裁判所第一小法廷 判決", 最高裁判所第一小法廷 判決, ~

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)