• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.93-118
• /
• 2012

본 연구는 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 대한 미국 케이스에 관한 연구입니다. 본 연구의 목적은 한국의 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 대한 추후 연구와 가까운 장래에 비교연구를 위해서 지적재산에 관련된 케이스들에 관하여 미국의 연구들을 논하는데 있습니다. 본 연구에서 지적재산 관련 사건들의 중재에 관한 미국케이스들을 채택하였습니다. 그리고 본 연구의 목적 달성과 효과적인 연구를 성취하기 위해 그 케이스들을 인용하였습니다. 그러므로, 본 연구의 구성은 특히, 라이센싱분쟁의 중재, 특허분쟁의 중재, 저작권분쟁의 중재를 위하여 지적재산분야와 중재 분야에 있는 케이스로 이루어져 있습니다. 중재조항은 분쟁에 관해 누가 결정할 것인가 그리고 분쟁이 중재 가능한가 아닌가에 관하여 법원에서 중재적격 문제들을 분석할때에 계약 원칙을 적용하게 됩니다. 일반적으로, 중재적격의 의문은 사법적 분야의 질문에 관한 것 입니다. 그러나, 중재조항이 분명하고, 명백하고, 오해없는 문구들인 곳에서 법원은 연방 중재법이 중재조항과 중재범위를 포함하고 있기 때문에 중재를 존중합니다. 그러므로, 저런 경우에 중재인은 중재적격을 판단 할 수 있습니다. 그러나, 미국에서 법원은 어떤 케이스들은 ICC 룰로 구속되어지고 그리고 다른 케이스들은 AAA 룰로 구속 되어지는 것을 발견했습니다. 어떤 룰이던지 간에 중재조항은 주의깊게 만들어야만 하고 그리고 분명하고 명백한 구문을 제공하여야만 한다는 것을 법원에 의해 요구되어지고 있습니다. 본 연구에서 발견한 점들은, 라이센싱분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 중재합의의 범위가 광범위 또는 제한적일지라도 양 당사자의 중재조항을 위해 계약에서 분명하고 명확한 문구를 만드는 것이 중요합니다. 이것은 우리에게 계약의 원칙이 분쟁에서 적용 되어지고 있다는 것을 보여 주고 있습니다. 그래서, 중재조항의 조문은 법원이나 중재인에게 논쟁 또는 오역이 없게 확실하고 분명하게 명시하여야 합니다. 특허분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 대부분 법원들은 케이스들을 분석할때에 광범위한 중재조항에 따라오고 있습니다. 중재적격 결정의 테스트로서 계약에서 "arising under" or "relating to" 구절은 ADR을 위해 그리고 분쟁의 예방을 위해 중재가 광범위한 문구를 포함하고 있는가 아닌가를 보는데 중요합니다. 더구나, 특허 또는 특허관련 권리들 하에서, 중재는 연방중재법에 의해 지배되기 때문에 계약은 특허 유효성 또는 침해 문제들이 중재를 통한 분쟁을 해결하도록 하나의 문구를 포함해도 됩니다. 그러므로, 이 분석은 미국의 케이스들을 비교한 결과로서, 한국중재법도 또한 모든 필요한 조문들이 그것들이 광범위하건 제한된 범위이건 간에 모호한 이슈들을 피하기 위해 분명하고 오해없는 문구들이여야 한다는 것을 제시합니다. 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 케이스에 근거하여 발견한 점들은 저작권법을 포함한 광범위한 중재조항이 있는 경우 저작권의 유효성은 법원이 독점할 수 없다고 법원은 판단했습니다. 그리고 연방중재법은 법원이 청구취지가 중재가능한 클레임들에(arbitrable claims) 관하여 중재를 강요하도록 지원하고 있습니다. 이것은 저작권 케이스일지라도 계약에 있어서 중재조항이 법원이 중재를 강요하도록 중재가능한가 아닌가 결정하는데 분쟁에 있어 중요한 역학을 한다는 것을 제시합니다. 그러므로, 본 연구는 계약에서 광범위한 중재조항은 중재인이 지적재산 클레임에 대해 판정 또는 룰을 결정하게 허용한다는 것을 발견했습니다. 본 연구의 결과들은 계약에 있어 중재의 범위는 계약의 원칙을 적용한다는 것입니다. 그리고 중재조항에 있어서 침해와 유효성 문제들의 결정은 계약 해석에 관련되어 있다는 것을 제시합니다. 그러므로, 양 당사자가 분명하고 명확하게 달리 결정하지 않았다면, 양 당사자가 중재에 대해 동의했는가 아닌가의 의문점은 법원에 의해 결정되어지는 것입니다. 이것은 분명하고 명확한 문구가 중재조항에 존재하지 않는다면 중재인에 의해 결정되지 않는다는 것을 뜻합니다. 중재조항은 명백하게 중재인에게 결정의 권한을 주어야만 한다는 것입니다.

• Proceedings of the Korea Institutes of Information Security and Cryptology Conference
• /
• 2006.06a
• /
• pp.691-702
• /
• 2006

최근 들어 IT기술의 발전과 정보의 디지털화와 더불어 지적재산권의 중요성이 커지고 있는 시점에서 최신 지적재산 보호의 주요국의 최신 동향과 지적재산과 관련된 분쟁사례를 조사 분석하고, 최신 동항의 주요 특징들을 통해 향후 우리나라의 권리보호와 관리기술의 개발 및 지적재산권 법제 개선의 발전방향을 모색하고자 한다.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry, and Cartography Conference
• /
• 2004.11a
• /
• pp.497-505
• /
• 2004

오늘날과 같이 산업사회의 급격한 발달로 인하여 토지의 재산적인 가치가 높게 평가되면서 국민들은 토지에 대한 정확하고 다양한 정보제공을 요구하고 있다. 그러나 우리나라는 토지조사사업으로 작성된 지적공부를 현재까지 사용하고 있으나 토지이동에 따른 지적경계의 변동과 지적도면이 변질되고, 신축과 훼손이 심해져서 지적도의 경계선과 지상경계선의 불일치로 토지분쟁을 유발하여 대국민관계에 불신을 초래하고 있는 것이 사실이다. 그러나 아직까지 정확한 해결방안을 찾지 못하고 있는 것이다. 그러므로 본 연구에서는 현행 지적공부의 문제점인 경계불부합을 효율적으로 정리할 수 있는 방안을 위해서 지상경계를 TS측량방법을 이용하여 필지별 면적과 경계점간 거리의 변화를 측정하여 도시지역과 농촌지역에 관한 도상 경계와 지상경계를 분석하여 문제점을 해결할 수 있는 방법으로 지상경계위주의 좌표로 등록하여 정리하는 것이 효율적인 방법임을 제시하였다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.71-100
• /
• 2007

To promote the way of resolving the increasing disputes regarding international intellectual property by arbitration, we should overcome uncertainty thwarting the dispute resolution; i.e., whether a dispute regarding intellectual property would be an arbitrable subject, whether the arbitration agreement would be valid and enforceable, and whether the arbitral award could be recognized and enforced in a foreign country. This article is intended to seek how to promote and facilitate the resolution of international disputes regarding intellectual property by arbitration. This article in Chapter II will examine the characteristics of the IP disputes first. Chapter III of this article will study arbitrability of IP disputes. Then, Chapter IV will discuss the requirements, validity, and effectiveness of arbitration agreement of international IP disputes. The author will discuss the procedure of arbitration of the international IP disputes in Chapter V, and finally the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards thereon in Chapter VI. Due to the so called 'territoriality principle' in intellectual property, the international disputes thereof confront numerous procedural setback, e.g., jurisdiction, conflict of laws, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or awards. To overcome such setbacks, I propose resolution of international IP disputes by one-step arbitration procedure through widely recognizing the arbitrability of IP disputes, and utilizing unnational nature of arbitration. In addition, I propose to set up the principles as to arbitration of the international IP disputes as the American Law Institute has formulated the principles for International Intellectual Property Litigations. By setting up these principles, I am certain it will be helpful to just and prompt resolution of international IP disputes which occur more frequently these days.

• The Inventors News
• /
• no.35
• /
• pp.3-4
• /
• 2005

특허기술상품 해외 전용 판로 열리다 - 미래 바꾸는 `2005 대한민국 특허기술 이전 박람회` - 특허청, 6시그마 도입으로 `특허행정 매뉴얼화` 추진 - GS 그룹의 새로운 로고 분쟁, 특허청 손에! - 미국, 한국에 대한 지적재산권 감시 등급 낮춰 - 충남중기종합지원센터 지역 첫 지식재산센터로 지정 - 대학로고에 `성형바람` - 발명교육 청소년 사이트 `발명틴틴` 퀴즈 이벤트 - 특허심판, `2006년 말까지 6개월 이내` 처리 - 특허고객콜센터 `한국서비스품질우수기업인증` 획득

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.199-241
• /
• 2004

This paper discusses to what extent the party autonomy can be allowed in intellectual property dispute resolution agreements in determination of governing law, international jurisdiction, and ADR agreement for arbitration, etc. in considering of the territoriality principle of IP. The party autonomy in choice of governing law and jurisdiction can be fully enjoyed in IP contract disputes. However, the freedom of choice is limited to the disputes regarding IF infringement disputes. The party autonomy is denied in the issues of determination of validity of patent or other IP rights. The author seeks the possibility to allow as much freedom in making choice of applicable law or jurisdiction, or entering into arbitration agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2011

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation's competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement" in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China's court. However, considering the criticism of China's passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it's very unlikely they'll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO's Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it's being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

• Journal of Software Assessment and Valuation
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.25-33
• /
• 2019

In copyright dispute on software, appraisal procedure is needed, which is regarded as an implementation of the right to fast trial. Considering that, in practice, there has been a long discussion of attempting to operate the software appraisal as a summary procedure. This was done usually by reducing the resources devoted to the summary procedure, however, this way inevitably makes difference in a result obtained through the procedure. Therefore, this research reviewed the previous operation of summary procedure in software appraisal, focusing on intrinsic nature of the summary procedure and role of software appraisal in the trial process.

• Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society
• /
• v.25 no.6
• /
• pp.1161-1170
• /
• 2014

In global competition like today, intellectual property of novel areas such as traditional knowledge, traditional creation, hereditary resource, etc. are perceived as important resources. Therefore making solid competitive power in overall knowledge resources like cultural contents, brand, design etc. in nation is a pressing question. Accordingly in this study, to prepare for intellectual property rights dispute and advantage-sharing problem that would be variously derived from the Nagoya Protocol which will come into force after 2014, this research selected 200 knowledge of middle region in Korea from 2,047 literal and 931 oral knowledge using preconditioning process. The order of priority of top 50 of them was ranked by a quantitative research method, the Delphi survey. Among them, 30 was literal traditional knowledge and 20 was oral traditional knowledge. Result of this research could be used later as basic material for qualitative researches like the focus group interviewing. Furthermore in this paper is meaningful; the selected traditional knowledge can contribute remarkably to traditional biologic knowledge resource in nation which can be acknowledged in international society, announcing validity (hold precedence for patent) later on.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.197-225
• /
• 2015

The presentation of this paper was triggered by the spread of MERS in Korea in the year 2015. The analysis of the present acts related with MERS is necessary in order to cope efficiently with any probable spread of such infectious diseases as MERS in future. The acts that should be analyzed in this paper include 'Medical Service Act' and 'Infectious Disease Control And Prevention Act' (hereafter, IDCAPA). At first the classification of the infectious diseases in IDCAPA should be referred to. The Act does not properly classify them because the scope of concept of each group of the infectious diseases overlaps each other. This overlap should be removed. The present system in IDCAPA is not proper for the efficient notification and reporting of the infectious disease patients. This is so in some viewpoints including the persons obligated to make the notification and reporting, the persons to whom they should notify and report such patients, and the process of notification and reporting. The efficient approach to the information related with the infectious disease is necessary for the rapid prevention of its spread. Cohort isolation and quarantine of the infectious patients and exposed contacts are the strongest and most efficient steps for the prevention of spread of the infectious diseases. One of the great problems related with such steps would be the conflict of powers or attributions, the likelihood of which is inevitable under the present system of IDCAPA. The IDCAPA distributed the power or attribution to take the steps to the three governments including the central government, the metropolitan government and the primary local government. The power should be concentrated in the central government, which could afford financially to compensate for the huge amount of damages caused likely by the steps. The power to take the steps would be actually just a useless thing for its holder without such financial capacity. The remedy for the victims by the fault of spreader should be approached to in the sense of national wealth. The general principle of tort law could not supply the victims with the sufficient remedy because the damages would be likely too huge for the wealth of such spreader to cope with. In future another parliamentary inspection could reveal another problems in the administration by the government of the MERS event in the year 2015. Any problem caused by defect in the legal system of the control and prevention of the infectious diseases should be taken into consideration when the legal system would be reformed in future.