미국특허법 제103조(비자명성) 탄생에 대한 역사적 성찰
Historical reflection on the birth of Article 103 (non-obviousness) of the U.S. Patent Act
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
1952년 미국특허법 제103조(비자명성)는 다음과 같은 과정을 통해서 탄생되었다. 첫째 1938년 루스벨트 대통령의 의회에 대한 특허개혁 요청과 ‘천재의 섬광’이라는 높은 특허기준을 제시한 연방대법원 판례(Cuno, 1941)가 특허법 개혁을 촉발시켰다. 둘째, ‘기술진보에 대한 공헌’ 기준 등 다양한 발명요건을 담은 법안이 1945년부터 제출되어 관련 청문회를 거치게 된다. 셋째, 청문회 참가자들로부터 비자명성 문구가 제안되었고, 특허청 주도로 이를 반영한 예비초안(제23조)이 만들어지게 된다. 넷째, 예비초안은 다양한 분야의 특허변호사(개인, 기업, 정부)가 참여한 민간 위원회에서의 논의를 거쳐 ‘발명 요건’에서 ‘비자명성 요건’으로 제목을 변경하는 제103조를 담은 법안(H.R. 9133)으로 변경된다. 이후 ‘기술진보’ 문구가 삭제된 법안(H.R. 7794)이 만들어져 1952년 통과되게 된다. 법안의 원만한 통과를 위해 동 조항은 기존 판례의 성문화 작업이라고 입법 자료에 기술되어, 상당 기간 혼란을 불러왔다. 이 연구는 혁신적 입법 시 용어의 선택, 다양한 이해 관계자의 참여, 입법의도의 명확한 표현이 중요하다는 점을 시사해 준다.
Abstract
Article 103 of the U.S. Patent Act 1952 was born through the following process. First, in 1938, President Roosevelt's request for patent reform to Congress and the Supreme Court decision(Kuno, 1941), which presented standards of 'a flash of genius,' triggered the reform of patent law. Second, various bills were submitted and went through related hearings. Third, standard of non-obviousness was proposed by the hearing participants, and a preliminary draft reflecting this was created under the leadership of Patent Office. Fourth, the title of the preliminary draft(Article 23) was changed to ‘non-obvious subject matter'(Article 103). Afterwards, the bill(H.R. 7794) in which the phrase 'the advancement of the art' was deleted passed in 1952. For the smooth passage of the bill, the provision was described in legislative documents as a codification of precedents, causing confusion. The history suggests that the choice of terms, the participation of various interested parties, and clear expression of legislative intentions are important in the legislative process containing innovative concept.
참고문헌 (46)
- 김영희, "미국의 입법과정" (2007), 한국학술정보
- 육소영, "해외국가별 지식재산권 제도 분석 : (1)미국편" (2002), 한국발명진흥회
- Merges, R, "Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age, Second edition" (2000), Aspen Law & Business
- Petroski, Henry, "An Engineer's Alphabet" (2011), Cambridge University Press
- Tomlins, Christopher L, "The United States Supreme Court" (2005), Houghton Mifflin
- 나종갑, "특허의 진보성개념의 발전과 전개: 반공유의 비극과 효율성", 산업재산권, (32), pp.41~86 (2010), 한국지식재산학회
- Barton, John H, "Non-Obviousness", IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, 43(3) (2003)
- Beier, Friedrich-Karl, "The Inventive Step in Its historical Development", IIC, 17(3) (1986)
- Danelski, D. J, "The Appointment of William O. Douglas to the Supreme Court", Journal of Supreme Court History, 40(1) (2015)
- Duffy, John F, "Inventing Invention: A Case Study of Legal Innovation", Texas Law Review, 86(1) (2007)
- Federico, P. J, "Origins of Section 103", APLA Quarterly Journal, 5(2) (1977)
- Federico, P. J, "Commentary on the New Patent Act", Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 75(3) (1993)
- Harris, L. James, "Some Aspects of the Underlying Legislative Intent of the Patent Act of 1952", George Washington Law Review, 23(6) (1955)
- Prager, Frank D, "Standards of Patentable Invention from 1474 to 1952", University of Chicago Law Review, 20 (1952)
- Rich, Giles S, "The Vague Concept of Invention as Replaced by Sec. 103 of the 1952 Patent Act", Journal of the Patent Office Society, 46(12) (1964)
- Rich, Giles S, "Laying the Ghost of the Invention Requirement", APLA Quarterly Journal, 1(1) (1972)
- Rich, Giles S, "Why and How Section 103 Came to Be", Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 14(1) (2004)
- Sirilla, George M, "35 U.S.C. 103: From Hotchkiss to Hand to Rich, the Obvious Patent Law Hall-of-Famers", J. Marshall L. Rev, 32 (1999)
- Taylor, David O, "Patent Reform, Then and Now", Michigan State Law Review, 2019 (2019)
- "Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248", ~ (1851)
- "Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84", ~ (1941)
- "Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147", ~ (1950)
- "Harries v. Air King Prod. Co., 183 F.2d 158", ~ (1950)
- "Thys Co. v. Oeste , 111 F. Supp. 665", ~ (1953)
- "Gagnier Fibre Products Co. v. Fourslides, Inc., 112 F.Supp. 926", ~ (1953)
- "New Wrinkle, Inc. v. Watson. 206 F.2d 421", C.A.D.C, ~ (1953)
- "Interstate Rubber Products Corp. v. Radiator Specialty Co., 214 F. 2d 546", ~ (1954)
- "Seismograph Service Corp. v. Offshore Raydist, 135 F. Supp. 342", ~ (1955)
- "Plax Corp. v. Precision Extruders, Inc. 239 F. 2d 792, 794", ~ (1957)
- "Ex parte Allen, 1 F.Cas. 434", ~ (1860)
- "Ex parte Smith, 22 F.Cas. 370", ~ (1860)
- "Graham v. John Deere Co., 216 F.Supp. 272", ~ (1963)
- "John Deere Co. v. Graham, 333 F.2d 529", ~ (1964)
- "Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1", ~ (1966)
- "United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39", ~ (1966)
- "Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., 277 F.3d 1361", ~ (2002)
- "High Court shows some patent ire", New York Times, ~ (1950)
- "Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies" (1938)[URL]
- "USPTO"[URL]
- Edward, Victor L, "Efforts To Establish A Statutory Standard of Invention(Study of the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Eighty-fifth Congress, First Session)" (1958), U.S. Government Printing
- National Patent Planning Commission, "The American Patent System(Report of the National Patent Planning Commission, House Document No. 239, 78th Cong.)" (1943), Government Printing Office
- The Committee on the Judiciary, "Proposed revision and amendment of the patent laws : preliminary draft with notes" (1950), Government Printing Office
- The Committee on the Judiciary, "Senate Report No.1979 (82d Cong., 2d sess.)", ~ (1952)
- Congress, "Congressional Record Vol.98", Senate, 82nd Congress, 2nd Session, 9097~ (1952)
- Congress, "Congressional Record Vol.98", Senate, 82nd Congress, 2nd Session, 9323~ (1952)