• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.18 no.5
• /
• pp.9-16
• /
• 2020

Recently, a patent holder of a technology that has been selected as a standard has caused considerable difficulties in enacting and using a patent technology standard as a patent ambush act that abuses the right. Major countries in the world are preparing legal grounds to prevent patent ambush, but in Korea, legal binding is very limited. Therefore, in this study, various proposals were attempted to prepare problems and policy solutions related to patent ambush in standard patents. In particular, we investigated issues and cases related to domestic and foreign ambush patents, it is considered that it is necessary to prepare a legally available device, clear standards for abuse of FRAND patent rights, and a patent compensation system to prevent patent ambushing.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.153
• /
• pp.18-29
• /
• 2010

• Journal of Information Management
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.141-159
• /
• 2006

This paper presents the response strategy taken by the both parties who possess and infringe the patent rights in the case of patent litigation occurring in local companies. It is common that many entrepreneurs suffer from patent judgment litigation related to the intellectual property rights. Response strategy on the standpoints of patentees and trespassers are discussed in several cases such as infringement and abuse of patent rights, divulgence of trade secret and invention during employment in small & medium sized enterprises.

• 발명특허
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.62-69
• /
• 2012

대법원 2012. 1. 19. 선고 2010다95390 전원합의체 판결은 민사법원이 특허침해소송에서 특허의 진보성에 대하여도 판단을 할 수 있고 진보성이 부정되는 특허권의 행사는 권리남용으로 허용되지 않는다는 취지로 판시하였다. 이 글에서는 이 사건 판결을 소개하고, 기존 대법원의 입장과 하급심의 실무 및 일본의 운용 실태를 살펴본 후, 향후 특허침해소송에서 진보성 판단 방향 및 구체적 적용기준을 전망하였다.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.81-88
• /
• 2014

The patent right is that creators are received the right of monopoly for supporting their creation work perseveringly but sometimes it causes infringement of freedom of creation. In this study, we examine the patent of music game in arcade game field and also examine Konami's, which is a main producer in this field, institutes many lawsuits repeatedly. It brought on diversion of rivals and depression of game market. We examine the abuse of music game patent through the case of Konami. We examine the negative influence through all music game market that creativity blocked by repetitive patent lawsuit institutes from little change of operation device and music game hardware even though it is reasonable for guarantee of new technology patent in game field which is a idea industry. We examine the lawsuit cases of abuse of music game patent in Korea, China and Japan and we analyze market change through the cases. We recommend policy for this industry development.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.155
• /
• pp.18-33
• /
• 2011

<경쟁저널> 제155호부터 '해외 경쟁법 주요 심판결 사례 해설'을 연재합니다. '해외 경쟁법 주요 심판결 사례 해설'은 필자인 경북대학교 최승재 교수가 우리 경쟁법 커뮤니티에게 시사 하는 바가 크다고 판단하는 다양한 해외 경쟁법 심판결 사례들을 소개하고 정리하면서, 경쟁법에 대한 적용 및 이해의 다양한 폭을 넓히게 될 것입니다. 이번 호는 연재의 첫 회로 Princo Corp. v. International Trade Comm'n, No. 2007-1386 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2010) 사건을 소개합니다. 이 사건은 미국 연방항소법원(CAFC)의 전원합의체 사건으로, 지식재산권과 경쟁법 간의 교착지점에서 의미 있는 사건으로 주목할 필요가 있습니다.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.79-102
• /
• 2014

A parallel importation is a non-counterfeit product imported from another country without the permission of the intellectual property owner. It is caused by price differences between countries. Therefore parallel importation are implication in issues of international trade and intellectual property rights(hereafter referred as IPR). This paper provides parallel importation issues of Korea and China under the IPR laws such as patent, trademarks, copyright and analyzes difference between two countries. In China, patent law regulates exhaustion rights which is based theory of a parallel import for the first time unlike trademark law and copyright law. On the other hands, Korea rules parallel importing under Korean customs regulations. In conclusion, two countries have no provisions that advocate a parallel import under IPR laws. This paper suggests some improvements to overcome the limitation of current regulation system and avoid trade friction between two countries. First of all, two countries should clearly make a rule about parallel import in IPR law such as definition of parallel importation, genuine goods, permission conditions, importing proses, penalty and remedy etc. Secondly, two countries should prohibit an abuse of a exclusive import agent's rights and manage a parallel importer not to cause consumer's complain about goods to expansion parallel imports. Finally, two countries should cooperate not to cause disputes about this issue with a communication channel.