• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.571-610
• /
• 2013

The current patent system is more often used for defensive purposes to exclude others' use or as a means to hold unfair strong positions in negotiations rather than for the original purpose as the dissemination and active use of useful technology. An injunction together with a damage is an important remedy for patent infringements. However, unlike a claim for damages, injunctions do not require the subjective requirement of intent and negligence or the occurrence of loss. If the validity of the patent and the fact of infringement are confirmed, automatically injunctions are issued without consideration of other circumstances. So a patent holder would exclude others' use and have a powerful position in negotiations because of injunctions for patent infringements. Therefore, those injunctions for patent infringements should be flexibly restricted according to cases under the premise to ensure fair compensation for the patent owner, rather than absolutely admitting injunctions for patent infringements like now. If then, it would serve the use of a useful technology and industrial development as the purpose of the patent system. First of all, judgments for preliminary injunctions should be strict and by deliberate decision on the merits permanent injunctions should be determined. In addition, it is needed that court's discretion possible to considerate 'the need for an injunction'. When the courts judge 'the need for an injunction', 'whether a patent holder has implemented a patent invention, the possibility of monetary compensation and the ability of the infringer for damages, a patent holder's intent to license and whether an injunction has been used as a weapon of negotiation, the proportion of patent technology in the entire products, the characteristics of patent technology and the possibility of patent invalidity, the competitive relationship for market share, the public interests and gains and losses between the parties and so on' should be considered. After these judgements, if 'the need for an injunction' is not approved, a patent owner would be protected by post-monetary compensation. However, because damages are related to illegal conducts in the past, in the case that an injunction is restrained, measures to ensure the legal implementation in the future are needed. It is primarily desirable that reasonable royalty is estimated throughout private negotiations between parties, but if agreement between the parties does not occur, patent owner should be able to claim the royalty for future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.249-277
• /
• 2015

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 ("Regulation") is a common rule on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. In some recent cases of European nations, passengers sued the air carrier in order to obtain monetary compensation under Article 7(1) of the Regulation. Some courts dismissed the actions on the grounds that, unlike denied boarding or cancellation of the flight, the Regulation provides no compensation in relation to delayed flights. However, Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU) ruled that Regulation 261/2004 must be interpreted to mean that passengers whose flights are delayed have a right to compensation in cases when the loss of time is equivalent to, or is in excess of three hours - where the passengers eventually reached their final destination three hours or more later than the originally scheduled arrival time. It is true that a strict interpretation of the regulation would suggest that passengers whose flight has merely been delayed are not entitled to compensation. They should only be offered assistance in accordance with the Articles 6 and 9. Nevertheless, the Court recognized the same right to the same compensation for passengers of flights delayed by more than three hours as that explicitly provided for passengers of cancelled flights. On the one hand, the Court bases this ruling on the recitals of the Regulation, in which the legislature links the question of compensation to that of a long delay, while indicating that the Regulations seek to ensure a high level of protection for passengers regardless of whether they are denied boarding or their flight is cancelled or delayed. On the other hand, the Court interprets the relevant provisions of the Regulation in light of the general principle of equal treatment. Furthermore, the Court delivered a ruling that the loss of time inherent in a flight delay, which constitutes an inconvenience within the intention of Regulation No 261/2004 and which cannot be categorized as 'damage occasioned by delay' within the meaning of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, cannot come within the scope of Article 29 of that convention. Consequently, under this view, the obligation under Regulation No 261/2004 intended to compensate passengers whose flights are subject to a long delay is in line with Article 29 of the Montreal Convention. Although the above interpretation of the Court can be a analogical interpretation, the progressive attitude of the Regulation and the view of Court forward to protect passengers' interest is a leading role in the area of international air passenger transportation. Hopefully, after the model of the positive support in Europe, Korea can establish a concrete rule for protecting passengers' right and interest.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.103-125
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews the EU Case, Claudia Wegener v. Royal Air Maroc SA [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:361, Case C-537/17. It analyzes some issues as to Wegener case by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, entitled scope, provides: "this Regulation shall apply: (a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies; (b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier." ECJ held that must be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies to a passenger transport effected under a single booking and comprising, between its departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and its arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State, a scheduled stopover outside the European Union with a change of aircraft. According to the Court, it is apparent from the regulation and case-law that when, as in the present case, two (or more) flights are booked as a single unit, those flights constitute a whole for the purposes of the right to compensation for passengers. Those flights must therefore be considered as one and the same connecting flight.