Application of Predatory Innovation Theory to Idemitsu Kosan’s Invalid Patents
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper is the research on the new attempt of application of US Antitrust Law to the anticompetitive conduct of predatory innovation found in OLED display industry and reinforcement of antitrust regulatory influence on the patent system. Multinational material firms having original material patents in the display market have tried to build patent portfolios using chemical combination inventions as one of the patent strategies to extend their monopolization with their market power. Recently, as domestic material firms cannot enter into the display market because of such chemical combination patents, the validity of the patents has been issued, so, accordingly, competitor have brought patent invalidation lawsuits against the invalid patents in Korea, Europe and Japan. Recently, three Idemitsu Kosan’s combination patents have been finally invalidated in Korea. These strategic patenting, however, may block competitors’ exploitation of its own invention, and thus may inhibit competitors’ entry into the market since competitors try to avoid infringing such patents, which results in the suppression of competition. As a result, such conduct adversely affects consumer’s welfare to enjoy high quality and cheap products by preventing free competition with material competitors and panel manufactures in OLED industry. Virtually, the dominant firms’ such conduct has triggered patent misuse concerns and antitrust scrutiny over predatory innovation. If the predatory innovation such as combination patents of Idemitsu Kosan restricts the competition or actually monopolizes the relevant market, such conduct shall be subject to Section 2 of the Sherman Act as monopolization or attempted monopolization by considering two prongs of the dominant firms’ blocking intent and the patent’s validity. In addition, hypothetically, if the predatory innovation is exercised with any enforcement of patent rights like threats or warning of infringement litigation by the dominant firms with intent to unfairly control the relevant market, that conduct shall constitute patent misuse. Ultimate goal of Antitrust Law and Patent Law is to improve true innovation and to maximize consumer welfare by encouraging firms’ competition. To achieve this goal, it shall be the best solution: to reinforce antitrust regulatory influence on the patent system; to harmonize Patent System and Antitrust Law by introduction of US Antitrust Law to IP Guidelines under MRFTA of KFTC to regulate anticompetitive conduct including predatory innovation; and establishment of an organization for communication and cooperation between Antitrust agents and Patent Offices.
Abstract
This paper is the research on the new attempt of application of US Antitrust Law to the anticompetitive conduct of predatory innovation found in OLED display industry and reinforcement of antitrust regulatory influence on the patent system. Multinational material firms having original material patents in the display market have tried to build patent portfolios using chemical combination inventions as one of the patent strategies to extend their monopolization with their market power. Recently, as domestic material firms cannot enter into the display market because of such chemical combination patents, the validity of the patents has been issued, so, accordingly, competitor have brought patent invalidation lawsuits against the invalid patents in Korea, Europe and Japan. Recently, three Idemitsu Kosan’s combination patents have been finally invalidated in Korea. These strategic patenting, however, may block competitors’ exploitation of its own invention, and thus may inhibit competitors’ entry into the market since competitors try to avoid infringing such patents, which results in the suppression of competition. As a result, such conduct adversely affects consumer’s welfare to enjoy high quality and cheap products by preventing free competition with material competitors and panel manufactures in OLED industry. Virtually, the dominant firms’ such conduct has triggered patent misuse concerns and antitrust scrutiny over predatory innovation. If the predatory innovation such as combination patents of Idemitsu Kosan restricts the competition or actually monopolizes the relevant market, such conduct shall be subject to Section 2 of the Sherman Act as monopolization or attempted monopolization by considering two prongs of the dominant firms’ blocking intent and the patent’s validity. In addition, hypothetically, if the predatory innovation is exercised with any enforcement of patent rights like threats or warning of infringement litigation by the dominant firms with intent to unfairly control the relevant market, that conduct shall constitute patent misuse. Ultimate goal of Antitrust Law and Patent Law is to improve true innovation and to maximize consumer welfare by encouraging firms’ competition. To achieve this goal, it shall be the best solution: to reinforce antitrust regulatory influence on the patent system; to harmonize Patent System and Antitrust Law by introduction of US Antitrust Law to IP Guidelines under MRFTA of KFTC to regulate anticompetitive conduct including predatory innovation; and establishment of an organization for communication and cooperation between Antitrust agents and Patent Offices.
참고문헌 (31)
- Herbert Hovenkamp, "IP and Antitrust 1-10" (2010), Wolters Kluwer
- Junji Kido, "Organic Electroluminescence Materials and Display Chapters 9, 11" (2001), CMC Co., Ltd
- Christopher R. Leslie, "Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property Rights", pp.92~ (2011), Oxford University Press
- Sullivan L., "Handbook of The Law of Antitrust", pp.108~ (1977)
- Alan J. Weinschel, "Antitrust and Patent Misuse in Licensing: Part I", J. Proprietary Rts, 7(11), pp.18~ (1995)
- Chihaya Adachi, "Efficient Electrophosphorescence Using a Doped Ambipolar Conductive Molecular Organic Thin Film", Organic Electronics, 2, pp.37~43 (2001)
- Christopher R. Leslie, "Antitrust and Patent Law as Component Parts of Innovation policy", The J. Cor. L, 34(4), pp.1285~ (2009)
- Faunce, T.A., "Linkage Pharmaceutical Evergreening in Canada and Australia", Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 4(8), pp.1~11 (2007)
- "To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law Executive Summary 5" (2003)[URL]
- Gregory Werden, "Identifying Exclusionary Conduct Under Section 2: The “No Economic Sense” Test", Antitrust L.J, 73(2), pp.413~ (2006)
- Irfan A. Lateef, "Special Feature: A Supreme End to Patent Troll?", Orange County L, 49, pp.18~ (2007)
- James A., "Misuse or Fair Use: That Is The Software Copyright Question", Berkeley Tech. L. J, 12, pp.251~ (1997)
- James D. Hurwitz, "Judicial Analysis of Predation: The Emerging Trends", Vand. L. Rev, 35, pp.113~ (1982)
- Janusz Ordover, "An Economic Definition of Predation: Pricing and Product Innovation", YALE L.J, 91(1), pp.8~53 (1981)
- John H. Barton, "Antitrust Treatment of Oligopolies with Mutual Blocking Patent Portfolios", Antitrust L.J, 69, pp.851~ (2002)
- Jonathan Jacobson, "Predatory Innovation: An Analysis of Allied Orthopedic v. Tyco in the Context of Section 2 Jurisprudence", Loy. Consumer L. Rev, 23(1), pp.2~ (2010)
- Josh Baskin, "Competitive Regulation of Mobile Software Systems: Promoting Innovation through Reform of Antitrust and Patent Laws", Hastings L. J, 64, pp.1728~ (2013)
- Katherine E. White, "A Rule For Determining When Patent Misuse Should be Applied", Fordham Intell. Prop., Media & Eent. L.J, 11, pp.671~ (2000)
- Korea Fair Trade Commission, "The Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA), Amended by Act No. 9554, Mar. 25", ~ (2009)
- Michael Paul Chu, "An Antitrust Solution to the New Wave of Predatory Patent Infringement Litigation", Wm. & Mary L. Rev, 33, pp.1341~ (1992)
- Nikolaus Thumm, "Patents for Genetic Inventions: A Tool to Promote Technological Advance or A Limitation for Upstream Inventions?", Technovation, 25, pp.1410~ (2005)
- Rebecca S. Yoshitani, "Pharmaceutical Reformulation: The Growth of Life Cycle Management", Houston J. Health Law & Policy, 387 (2007)
- "Review Guidelines on Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights, Notice No. 12, Enacted on Aug. 30, 2000, Notice No. 80, Amended on Mar. 31, 2010", Korea Fair Trade Commission, ~
- Richard Gilbert, "Holding Innovation to an Antitrust Standard", Competition Pol’y Int’l, 3, pp.53~ (2007)
- Ross D. Petty, "Antitrust and Innovation: Are Product Modifications Ever Predatory?", Suffolk U. L. Rev, 22, pp.999~ (1988)
- Saami Zain, "Misuse of Misuse: Princo Corp. v. International Trade Commission and the Federal Circuit’s Misguided Patent Misuse Jurisprudence", N. C. J. L. & Tech, 13, pp.94~ (2011)
- 오승한, "특허·저작권 남용의 본질 및 근거와 독점규제법 위반행위와의 구분", 산업재산권, (33), pp.159~230 (2010), 한국지식재산학회
- "United States Patent and Trademark Office Free Modernization Act of 2003: Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 2", ~ (2003)
- "Van Dyk Research Corp. v. Xerox Corp, 478 F. Supp. 1268 (D.N.J. 1979), aff'd, 631 F.2d 251 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 101 S. Ct. 3029", ~ (1980)
- Won-Hee Cho, "Patent Misuse Doctrine under the U.S. Patent Law: the Relation with Antitrust Violation", Justice, 104, pp.115~ (2008)
- 최요섭, "A Study of Competition Law and Intellectual Property in the EU: Comparative Perspectives in Licensing Agreements", 지식재산연구, 6(2), pp.109~145 (2011), 한국지식재산연구원