미국 ‘특허강제실시’ 제도의 진화와 그 함의
The Evolution of Patent Compulsory Licensing in the United States and Its Implications
1
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
미국의 특허강제실시 제도는 역동적으로 진화하고 있다. 1790년 특허법 제정당시부터 지속적으로 보편적 강제실시 규정을 입법화 하려는 시도는 있어 왔으나,현재까지 성공하지 못하고 있다. 이는 강제실시허여가 헌법의 배타적 권리를 부여한다는 조항과 배치되며, 미국특허시스템의 근본과 불일치한다는 이론에 상당 부분 영향을 받은 결과라고 보인다. 그러나 특정한 목적의 특허강제실시 조항은 다양한 법률에 들어가 있다. 예컨대, 미국정부가 특허를 침해하거나 침해할 권한을부여한 경우 그 구제수단으로서 금지권이 아닌 손해배상청구권만이 인정되며, 이는 일종의 특허강제실시라고 볼 수 있다(28 U.S.C. §1498). 원자력에너지법과대기청정법은 특허강제실시를 규정하고 있으며, 특허법은 미국 연방정부의 지금지원에 의한 특허권의 경우, 연방기관에게 무상의 실시권을 주는 조항과 민간기관에게 실시권을 부여할 수 있는 조항을 가지고 있다. 또한 사법부는 독점금지법 위반에 대해 특허강제실시를 구제수단으로 사용하는 법리를 만들어서 활용하고 있다. 21세기 들어와서 특허괴물 등 비실시기관의 기술혁신 저해에 대해 연방대법원은 미국 특허법 제283조의 재해석을 통해 사실상의 강제실시를 허용하고 있다. 또한 바이오테러에 직면하여 개도국의 전략으로 알려진 전략, 즉 강제실시허여를 협상의 수단으로 사용하여 의약품의 가격을 낮추는 데 성공하였다. 이 같이미국은“특허강제실시 제도”를 교조적 원칙이 아닌 실용적 관점에서 접근하고 있으며, 환경의 변화에 대응하여 유연하게 진화시키고 있다. 특허강제실시의 도입여부는 선과 악이라는 도덕적 문제가 아니고, 한 국가의 기술혁신을 포함한 넓은의미의 복리에 도움이 되는지 여부를 판단하는 정책의 문제일 뿐이다. 특정 시대,특정 상황에서 특정 사회에 혜택이 극대화 할 수 있도록 강제실시를 운영하는 것이 타당하다.
Abstract
Patent Compulsory Licensing system in the United States hasevolved dynamically. There has been continuous attempts to legislateuniversal patent compulsory licensing clause since enactment of patentact in 1790. It has not succeeded partly because of strong argument thatpatent compulsory licensing is inconsistent with the provision of theConstitution that grants patentee the exclusive rights. However, patentcompulsory licensing provisions for the specific purposes have got intothe various laws. In addition, the judiciary has been used patentcompulsory licensing as remedies for antitrust violations. In the 21stcentury, the Supreme Court has allowed the de facto compulsorylicensing through the reinterpretation of 35 U.S.A. 283 against patentmisuse by patent troll. In addition, threatening of patent compulsorylicensing was successfully used as a tool for lowering the price ofmedicines against bio-terrorism. It has been known as the strategy ofdeveloping countries. The United States is approaching 'patentcompulsory licensing’ from a practical point of view rather thandogmatic principles. Therefore, it has been evolved flexibly respond tochanges in the environment.
참고문헌 (41)
- 육소영, "해외국가별 지식재산권 제도 분석(1)미국편" (2002), 한국발명진흥회
- 윤권순, "특허권 재해석을 통한 특허괴물 현상 분석과 '지식권'의 제안", 박사, 과학기술법, pp.2010
- 리처드 넬슨, "산학협력의좌표를 찾아서- 미국 대학의 기술이전과 바이-돌 법" (2011), 소명출판
- Carol M. Nielsen, "COMPULSORY PATENT LICENSING: IS IT A VIABLE SOLUTION IN THE UNITED STATES?", Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 13 (2007)
- Daniel R. Cahoy, "TREATING THE LEGAL SIDE EFFECTS OF CIPRO(R): A REEVALUATION OF COMPENSATION RULES FOR GOVERNMENT TAKINGS OF PATENT RIGHTS", American Business Law Journal, 40 (2002)
- Davida H. Isaacs, "NOT ALL PROPERTY IS CREATED EQUAL: WHY MODERN COURTS RESIST APPLYING THE TAKINGS CLAUSE TO PATENTS, AND WHY THEY ARE RIGHT TO DO SO", George Mason Law Review, 15 (2007)
- Fritz Machlup, "An Economic Review of Patent System", UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, ~ (1958)
- Recent examples of the use of compulsory licenses on patents, "James Packard Love", Knowledge Ecology International, ~, pp.KEI Research Notes 2 (2007)
- Jason D. Ferrone, "COMPULSORY LICENSING DURING PUBLIC HEALTH CRISES: BIOTERRORISM’S MARK ON GLOBAL PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT PROTECTION", Suffolk Transnational Law Review, 26 (2003)
- Jason Mirabito, "Compulsory Patent Licensing for the United States: A Current Proposal", Journal of Patent Office Society, 57(7) (1975)
- John D. Pinzone, "The Affordable Prescription Drugs Act: A Solution for Today’s High Prescription Drug Prices", Journal of Law and Health, 16 (2001)
- Joseph A. Yosick, "COMPULSORY PATENT LICENSING FOR EFFICIENT USE OF INVENTIONS", University of Illinois Law Review (2001)
- Justin Torres, "THE GOVERNMENT GIVETH, AND THE GOVERNMENT TAKETH AWAY: PATENTS, TAKINGS, AND 28 U.S.C. §1498", New York University Annual Survey of American Law, 63 (2007)
- Kenneth J. Nunnenkamp, "Compulsory Licensing of Critical Patents Under CERCLA?", Journal of Natural Resources & Environmental Law, 9 (1994)
- Kristopher Lancial, "COMPULSORY PATENT LICENSING: THE NEXT STEP IN ADAPTING PATENTS TO THE TECHNOLOGICAL AGE", Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, 18 (2013)
- Neil S. Tyler, "PATENT NONUSE AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPRESSION: THE USE OF COMPULSORY LICENSING TO PROMOTE PROGRESS", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 162 (2014)
- Paul Gormley, "Compulsory Patent Licenses and Environmental Protection", Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 7 (1993)
- Compulsory Licensing: Evidence from the Trading with the Enemy Act, "Petra Moser", NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, ~ (2009)
- Reichman, Jerome H, "Compulsory licensing of patented pharmaceutical inventions: evaluating the options", Journal of Law and Medical Ethics, 37(2) (2009)
- Richard A. Epstein, "QUESTIONING THE FREQUENCY AND WISDOM OF COMPULSORY LICENSING FOR PHARMACEUTICAL PATENTS", University of Chicago Law Review, 78 (2011)
- Simone A. Rose, "ON PURPLE PILLS, STEM CELLS, AND OTHER MARKET FAILURES: A CASE FOR A LIMITED COMPULSORY LICENSING SCHEME FOR PATENT PROPERTY", Howard Law Journal, 48 (2005)
- Stefan A. Riesenfeld, "Compulsory Licenses and United States Industrial and Artistic Property Law", California Law Review, 47(1) (1959)
- Stefan A. Riesenfeld, "Patent Protection and Atomic Energy Legislation", California Law Review, 46(1) (1958)
- Terry K. Tullis, "APPLICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT LICENSE DEFENSE TO FEDERALLY FUNDED NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH: THE CASE FOR A LIMITED PATENT COMPULSORY LICENSING REGIME", UCLA Law Review, 53 (2005)
- William G. Pagàn, "COMPULSORY LICENSING OF GENE PATENTS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST", Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Law Review, 93 (2014)
- "William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Bldg. Co. v. Int’l Curtis Marine Turbine Co., 246 U.S. 28 (1918)", ~ (1918)
- "HOW THE STANLEY BILL ( S. 3410 ) For Compulsory License of Patents IMPERILS INVENTORS, MANUFACTURERS AND THE AMERICAN PATENT SYSTEM. TESTIMONY OF INVENTORS, MANUFACTURERS, PUBLICISTS AND SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES WHO SUCCESSFULLY OPPOSED A SIMILAR COMPULSORY LICENSE Measure BEFORE THE HOUSE PATENT COMMITTEE IN 1912", AMERICAN PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION, ~ (1922)
- Technology Transfer: Administration of the Bayh-Dole Act by Research Universities, "Susan Kladiva", U.S. Gen. Acct. Off., ~, pp.GAO (1998), RCED-98-126
- "Hoe v. Knap, 27 F. 204, 212(C.C.N.D. Ill. 1886)", ~
- "Continental Paper Bag Co. v. E. Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 429 (1908)", ~
- "Hartford-Empire v United States 323 US 386, 417(1945)", ~
- "Standard Oil Co. v. United States 221 U.S. 1, 78 (1911)", ~
- "eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC 547 U.S. 388 (2006)", ~
- "Standard Sanitary Mfg.Co. v. United States, 226 U.S. 20,489 (1912)", ~
- "Zoltek Corp. v. U.S. 672 F.3d 1309, 1315 C.A.Fed., (2012)", ~
- "H10754, Congressional Record-House, October 25, 1999", ~
- "Bogus Reliance on the Clean Air Act’s Compulsory Patent Licensing" (2009)[URL]
- "Companies Raise Intellectual Property Protection Issues" (2010)[URL]
- "History of 28 USC 1498, as reported in Zoltek Corp v US (2009-5135)"[URL]
- "NIH Exercising “March-In”Rights - Is the Fifth Time the Charm?" (2012)[URL]
- "Written Statement of James Love, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), at the United States International Trade Commission Investigation into Trade, Investment and Industrial Policies in India, Investigation No. 332543. February 14, 2014"[URL]