• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.303-343
• /
• 2018

In 2013 a new era for EU patent law system was launched. The creation of the EU patent with unitary effect and the establishment of the Unified Patent Court established a new legal framework on substantive patent protection and patent litigation in Europe. This year the EU Patent Package would become a reality. It includes a regulation on a unitary patent, a regulation on the translation regime and an international Agreement on the Unitary Patent Court. In contrast to the classical European patent, the post-grant life of unitary patent will be governed by the newly created unified patent court and it will have unitary effect. In this article, I highlight the effect of the unitary patent and the jurisdiction of the unified patent court over unitary patents (and 'traditional' patents granted under the EPC that are not opted-out) for actions in relation to patent infringement or to revocation of a European patent and to licences of right. This article explores on the one hand the relation between national patent, the classical European patent and EU patent with unitary effect and on the other hand the relation of unified patent court to the Brussels $I^{bis}$ Regulation. Particular attention is paid to the institutional changes created by the unitary patent package abd the new supplementary forum that enables the UPC to hear disputes involving defendants from third States that relate to an infringement of a European patent and give rise to damage inside as well as outside the Union. Furthermore on the perspective North-east Asia this essay examines the lessons from the experiences of EU patent package.

• 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.32 no.2
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2017

On 12 October 2017, the English Royal Courts of Justice delivered its decision about air carrier's compensation liability for the flight delay. In the cases the passengers suffered delays at a connecting point and, consequently, on arrival at their final destination. They claimed compensation under Regulation 261/2004 (the "Regulation"), as applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") in Sturgeon v. Condor [2009]. The principal issues were whether delays suffered by the passengers during the second leg of their respective journeys were compensable under the Regulation, whether there was jurisdiction under the Regulation and whether the right to compensation under the Regulation is, insofar as non-Community air carriers are concerned, excluded by virtue of the exclusive liability regime established under the Montreal Convention 1999. The passengers, the plaintiff, argued that the relevant delay was not that on flight 1 but that suffered at the "final destination". They maintained that there was no exercise by the EU of extraterritorial jurisdiction as the delay on flight 2 was merely relevant to the calculation of the amount of compensation due under the Regulation. The air carrier, the defendant, however argued that the only relevant flights for the purpose of calculating any delay were the first flights (flights 1) out of EU airspace, as only these flights fell within the scope of the Regulation; the connecting flights (flights 2) were not relevant since they were performed entirely outside of the EU by a non-Community carrier. Regarding the issue of what counts as a delay under the Regulation, the CJEU held previously on another precedents that the operating carrier's liability to pay compensation depends on the passenger's delay in arriving at the "final destination". It held that where the air carrier provides a passenger with more than one directly connecting flight to enable him to arrive at their destination, the flights should be taken together for the purpose of assessing whether there has been three hours' or more delay on arrival; and that in case of directly connecting flights, the final destination is the place at which the passenger is scheduled to arrive at the end of the last component flight. In addition, the Court confirmed that the Regulation applied to flights operated by non-Community carriers out of EU airspace even if flight 1 or flight 2 lands outside the EU, since the Regulation does not require that a flight must land in the EU. Accordingly, the passengers' appeal from the lower Court was allowed, while that of air carrier was dismissed. The Court has come down firmly on the side of the passengers in this legal debate. However, this result is not a great surprise considering the recent trends of EU member states' court decisions in the fields of air transport and consumer protection. The main goal of this article is to review the Court's decision and to search historical trend of air consumer protection especially in EU area.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.3-40
• /
• 2020

The term "accident" in the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999, which govern carrier liability in international air transport, is an important criterion for determining carrier liability. However, because there is no explicit definition of the term in the treaty provisions, the term is largely subjected to the judgment and interpretation of the courts. Although there have been numerous changes in purpose and circumstance in the transition from the Warsaw regime to the conclusion of the Montreal Convention, there was no discussion on the concept of "accident" therefore, even after the adoption of the Montreal Convention, there is no doubt that the term is to be interpreted in the same manner as before. On this point, the United States Supreme Court's Air France v. Saks clarified the concept of "accident" and is still cited as an important precedent. Recently, the CJEU, in GN v. ZU, presented a new concept of "accident" introduced in the Montreal Convention: that "reference must be made to the ordinary meaning" in interpreting "accident" and that the term "covers all situations occurring on aboard an aircraft." Furthermore, the CJEU ruled that the term does not include the applicability of "hazards typically associated with aviation," which was controversial in previous cases. Such an interpretation can be reasonably seen as the court's expansion of the concept of "accident," with a focus on "protecting consumer interests," a core tenet of both the Montreal convention and the European Union Regulations(EC: No 889/2002). The CJEU's independent interpretation of "accident" is a departure from the Warsaw Convention and the Saks case, with their focus on "carrier protection," and instead focuses on the "passenger protection" standard of the Montreal Convention. Consequently, this expands both the court's discretion and the carrier's risk management liability. Such an interpretation by the CJEU can be said to be in line with the purpose of the Montreal Convention in terms of "passenger protection." However, there are problems to be considered in tandem with an expanded interpretation of "accident." First, there may be controversy concerning "balance" in that it focused on "passenger protection" in relation to the "equitable balance of interests" between air carriers and passengers, which is the basic purpose of the agreement. Second, huge losses are expected as many airlines fly to countries within the European Union. Third, there is now a gap in the interpretation of "accident" in Europe and the United States, which raises a question on the "unity of rules," another basic tenet of the Convention. Fourth, this interpretation of "accident" by the CJEU raises questions regarding its scope of application, as it only refers to the "hazards typically associated with aviation" and "situations occurring aboard an aircraft." In this case, the CJEU newly proposed a novel criterion for the interpretation of "accident" under the Montreal Convention. As this presents food for thought on the interpretation of "accident," it is necessary to pay close attention to any changes in court rulings in the future. In addition, it suggests that active measures be taken for passenger safety by recognizing air carriers' unlimited liability and conducting systematic reforms.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.525-551
• /
• 2017

This Article discusses the current trend of European competition damage actions focused on the recent Damage Directive and its transposition by the United Kingdom and Germany. The relevant Directive was signed into law in November 2014, and it requires the EU Member States to adopt certain measures to support competition damage actions. The required measures and principles by the Directive include right to full compensation, rebuttable presumption of harm, extensive disclosure of evidence, use of pass-on for defense and indirect purchaser suits. Although many Member States did not meet the deadline to transpose the Directive, the end of 2016, it is reported that 23 Member States have now, as of September 2017, made enactments according to the Directive. When we look at the transposition done by the United Kingdom and Germany, the revisions on their competition laws closely follow the contents of the Directive. However, it will take quite a long time before the amended provisions apply to actual cases since most of the new provisions apply to the infringement that take place after the date of the amendment. A similar situation regarding application time may happen in some other Member States. Furthermore, even if the terms of the competition laws of the Member States become similar following the Directive, the interpretations of the laws may differ by the courts of different countries. EU also does not have a tool to coordinate the litigations that are brought in different Member States under the same facts. It is true that the EU made a big step to enhance competition damage actions by enacting Damage Directive. However, it needs to take more time and resources to have settled system of competition private litigation throughout the Member States. Korea has also experienced increase in competition damage actions during the last fifteen years, and there have been some revisions of the relevant fair trade law as well as development of relevant legal principles by court decisions. Although there are some suggestions that Korea should have more enactments similar to the EU Directive, its seems wiser for Korea to take time to observe how EU countries actually operate competition damage actions after they transposed the Directive. Then, it will be able to gain some wisdom to adopt competition action measures that are suitable for Korean legal system and culture.

• The Inventors News
• /
• no.48
• /
• pp.1-16
• /
• 2006

축사/발명 유비쿼터스 선도하는 언론 지향/'발명하는 사람들' 창간 4주년 맞다/'발명하는 사람들' 창간 4주년을 축하합니다/반도체 공정분야 특허 출원 급증/운동화에도 웰빙 바람/공기청정기 특허출원 꾸준한 증가/차세대 반도체 특허, 회로.응용 분야에 집중/맥주, 이제 병이 아닌 플라스틱 용기에/특허고객콜센터, 품질인증 획득/특허청,'찾아가는 특허검색서비스' 제공/직무발명보상 개정법 관련 세미나/'쟁점별 특허소송 가이드북'제작/특허청 연구회, 고객감동 경영의 밑거름/한국특허정보원,2006 한국서비스대상 공공부문 대상 수상/현대차, 특허침해 찾으면 로열티 10% 지급/나이키 짝퉁, 한해 3백60만 켤레 적발/특허청, 자동차부품연구원과 업무협약/휴대용 포토 프린터 특허 출원 증가/역사 속의 발명품/하루 10분 발명교실/특허Q&A/한국여성발명협회 13년 발자취/미니인터뷰/이공계 대학교수 대상 특허정보 세미나 개최/실용신안 등록출원, 우선심사 대상 확대/자료 수집을 소홀히 마라/특허청 간부진, 고객 현장 속으로/삼성, 중국 저명상표로/포스코, 특허시스템 가동/도미다의 원너 커트/월마트, 짝퉁 '펜디' 판매로 망신살/일본, '지적재산권 입국' 계획 마련/미국-유럽연합, 짝퉁 퇴치 나선다/특허청, 자체 브랜드 '특허로' 첫상표출원/인청 부평지식재산센터, 발명가 초청강연회 개최/'2006 피츠버그 국제전' 에서 국내 발명가 수상/세계 최고 4대 건강식품/특허법원, 책 제목 출판사 소유로/한국여성발명협회 회원사 발명품 가이드/'2006년 여대생 발명캠프'/

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.145-181
• /
• 2013

General aviation is an integral part of civil aviation and involves the widest range of aviation segments except commercial aviation. Featured with different operational procedures and practices to satisfy the economic needs and safety requirements of a sovereign state, general aviation tends to be regulated by an individual state. The last three decades have seen exponential growth of commercial air transport in China, but its general aviation sector has remained disproportionally underdeveloped. With the deepening of the reform of low-altitude airspace, the sector is poised for a radical change and rapid growth. However, legislation governing general aviation activities in China is distorted causing inconsistency and confusions in their application and implementation. This paper aims to analyse China's prevailing legislation regulating general aviation activities. It first discusses the various definitions adopted by ICAO and its member states and reviews the development of general aviation in the US, EU, Australia and China. It then examines the sources of China's general aviation laws, e.g. Chicago Convention and its annexes, and Chinese domestic legislature which covers legislation, laws, directives, rules and procedures. The paper continues to analyse and establish the deficiencies of its prevailing legal framework by pointing out the following: variation of definitions in different regulations, inconsistency of principles in existing laws and regulations, legal vacuum concerning government subsidy, environment protection, safety and security, and other operational areas such as aerial club, sightseeing, and search and rescue. In this process, the paper argues that a coherent, consistent and systematic legal framework is required in order to ensure fair competition and safety for a healthy, progressive and sustainable general aviation growth. Suggestions for rectification and improvement are proposed.