• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.133-152
• /
• 2015

Cause of the technology leakage and trade secrets can be leaked to the lack of infrastructure, lack of coping skills of SMEs. In addition, small businesses can avoid technology outflow and re-experience the same half of the damage, even when the external leak developed after the fact and does not demonstrate such technology leakage time for the technology and situation which did not take any action, security, infrastructure investments difficult, work-related knowledge, lack of security, trade secret protection dedicated staff, inadequate legal and institutional measures have been identified as such complaints to date. For subcontracting, etc. mid-sized transactions, hinder the growth of SMEs, SME cross-technology leakage to the increase in unfair practices, including useful, and this has been accompanied by growth-based business-to-business it weakened.

• Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.7-30
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this study is to suggest the directions for record and information management (RIM) strategies for Korean companies as preparation for e-Discovery risks. It begins with the articulation key concepts and some RIM issues of e-Discovery, which is governed by the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. It analyzes three lawsuit cases for which Korean companies were sued by North American companies in order to determine the main reasons behind the defensible disposition failures. Based on the analyses, it suggests the RIM strategic policies for preparing the e-Discovery, including the development of inventories for documents and ESI in their possession, custody, or control; ensuring legal hold programs in good faith; and making defensible retention policies.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.57-72
• /
• 2011

According to Japanese Patent Act, the Japanese Patent Office, administrative organization, was authorized to decide validation of patent. However, Supreme Court of Japan held that a court is able to decide the invalidation of patent in 11th April, 2000, which caused the reform of Japanese Patent Act in June 2004. Reformed Patent Act established the article 104-3 and makes it for a court to decide the patentability where there are grounds for a patent invalidation. Through this amendment to the Patent Act, the legislative system to decide the patent validation has been reorganized and furthermore alleged infringer is allowed to argue against the patent validation by making use of infringement litigation procedure through defenses against patent invalidation as well as invalidation trial procedure for to file a request for a trial for patent invalidation to the Japanese Patent Office. That is to say, the article 104-3 was established in the Japanese Patent Act in the wake of Kilby, and thus a court, which is judicial authority, not administrative disposition agency is also able to decide the patent validation. Thus this article discuss how a court, the authority of which only patent infringement cases fell under, has been authorized to arbitrate cases about the patent validation and the decision of the patent validation in a court.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers
• /
• v.55 no.6
• /
• pp.635-648
• /
• 2018

This study analyzed patent trends of seismic nodal systems and the technical characteristics of core patents of three major companies, including Fairfield, Sercel, and Wireless Seismic, to examine the focus of technology development of each company. From the analysis, the patent application growth rate of seismic nodal systems has steadily increased since early to mid-2000s and has recently shown a higher growth rate. Over the same period, the patent application growth rate of the three major companies examined was higher than that of the global trend, and patent infringement cases was also examined to evaluate market competition in this field. Analysis of the technical characteristics of the three companies' 33 core patents showed that they are generally focused on seismic signal detection. Sub-technologies included improved reliability of data acquisition, data transmission efficiency, and overall operating of the seismic nodal system. New entrants in field of technology development or manufacturing of seismic nodal systems where the market is growing must closely analyze the contents of major companies' products and patents to prevent possible patent disputes or duplicate research.

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.313-333
• /
• 2017

As science and technology advanced, specialized and massive, development through mutual cooperation or research based on patent licensing such as material transfer contract, technology transfer contract etc are actively taking place to minimize or separate the cost and risk of R&D. In R&D, such mutual work can enjoy the merit of division of labor by effectively allocating resources and manpower to accomplish its goal. Inevitably, however, there are also many possibilities of disputes regarding the ownership and use of intellectual property rights resulting from such mutual/post-studies, or inventions upgraded by using prior patents. The case reviewed by this paper is noticeable regarding the recent trend of upgraded inventions. In the case, a pharmaceutical company conducted tests/assessments on the complete technology of patent owned by a university on the premise of transferring the technology, and then terminated the technology transfer contract due to reasons of toxicity. The university then filed a damage claim suit against the company for infringing the contract. This is a dispute case betw een a university which developed a potential ingredient for new medicine and a pharmaceutical company which agreed to transfer and receive the technological later on. Regarding the upgraded inventions of source patents, this case has many implications on the protection of prior patents, research contract, and research security to protect the accomplishment of research. This paper reviews the subject ruling and the protection of upgraded patents and source technologies. As critical notes, the paper also summarizes the major issues of case ruling to observe the standard of ruling patent infringement related to the extortion of upgraded patents. Then, through the ruling of the case above, the paper suggests implications and future strategies.

• 발명특허
• /
• v.36 no.11
• /
• pp.50-53
• /
• 2011

애플이 소유한 '앱스토어' 상표권에 마이크로소프트(MS)가 제동을 걸었다. 애플리케이션의 부가가치가 높아지면서 앱스토어 개념이 애플에 종속되는 것을 막기 위해서다. MS가 미국 특허상표청(USPTO)에 앱스토어 상표권이 일반 명칭이며 경쟁자들이 이용할 수 있도록 허용돼야 한다는 취지의 소송을 제기했다고 PC월드 레지스터 등이 11일(현지시각) 전했다. 애플은 지난 2008년 앱스토어를 '인터넷, 컴퓨터 및 전자통신 네트워크를 통해 공급되는 컴퓨터 소프트웨어(SW)의 소매상점 서비스'로 규정해 상표권 등록을 마쳤다. 이후 '아이폰'을 위한 앱스토어를 열어 30만 개가 넘는 애플리케이션이 등록되는 등 큰 성공을 거두면서 애플리케이션 장터의 대명사로 자리매김했다. 애플은 이달 초 맥PC를 위한 '맥 앱스토어'도 선보였다. 이에 대해 MS는 '앱'은 앱스토어에서 판매되는 상품 및 서비스를 가리키는 일반적인 용어고, '스토어'는 소매상점 서비스를 나타내는 일반명사라고 주장했다. 또 애플 최고 경영자(CE) 스티브 잡스가 한 언론 인터뷰에서 "아마존, 버라이즌, 보다폰은 모두 안드로이드를 위한 자체 앱스토어를 구축하고 있다"고 언급한 부문을 들어 애플 자신도 앱스토어를 일반 명칭으로 사용하고 있다고 강조했다. MS는 "소비자와 업계, 미디어들이 모두 앱스토어를 애플리케이션이 판매되는 온라인 상점으로 여기고 있다"면서 "앱스토어라는 이름을 애플이 배타적으로 활용해서는 안 된다"고 밝혔다. MS는 지난해 말 윈도폰7 운영체계(OS)를 위한 온라인 스토어 '마켓플레이스'를 개설했다. IDC는 마켓플레이스에 두 달 만에 4,000여 개의 애플리케이션이 등록됐다고 집계했다.

• 한국벤처창업학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2007.11a
• /
• pp.15-43
• /
• 2007

The object of this study is to present a strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries focusing on international cooperation policy of KIPO and infringement of overseas intellectual property rights on the notion that a policy performed without a long-term plan will not lead to industrial growth in the long run. The number of dispute cases of intellectual property rights in Japan ranks first with 275 cases compared to that of other countries. Among the dispute case, the number of validation trial is 107 cases(38.9%), and correction trial is 83 cases(30.2%). The USA ranks second in dispute of intellectual property rights. Among the dispute of intellectual property rights in the USA, the number of validation trial is 66 cases(64.7%), and correction trial is 21 cases(20.6%). A strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries is as follows. A strategy is required to cope with infringement of overseas intellectual property rights. Korean government has to strengthen the function of overseas intellectual property rights protection center, strengthen boundary restriction of infringement goods, promote international dispute study, train international dispute specialist, solve jurisdiction problem of patent court system, improve trial system, construct confidence as social capital etc. Enterprises have to maintain No Patent No Future policy, specialize on application and countermeasure against infringement dispute, participate for formation and standardization of Patent Pool, strive for specialization regarding technical transfer and license management.

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.127-152
• /
• 2017

China's utility model as a supplement to the invention patent, has short application duration, fast authorized speed, and has the same exclusive rights with patents, so companies can quickly dominate the market. But the utility model does not need to carry out substantive examination, so has lower stability, high frequency of invalid to accepted, so compare with the invention patent, difficult to be protected. In order to actively encourage the small and medium-sized enterprises to promote their inventions, and protect domestic patents, China established a protection policy of patent evaluation report for the utility model rights, especially the patent evaluation report can be used as evidence in a patent infringement trial, to provide judicial remedies for utility model patentee and the party of patent disputes. Many experts believe that the establishment of patent evaluation report system can improve the stability of the utility model patent right, and when the defendant request for invalidation of the patent right in the defense period, if there is no novelty, creativity lost or no other reason has not led to the stability of patent right given in a patent evaluation report of the utility model patents, the court may not suspend the trial, without having to wait for the Patent Reexamination Board makes the patent invalid declaration decisions, can improve the efficiency of the judicial process, accelerate the patentee's time. However, in practical patent infringement, the patent evaluation report system and invalidation system are in conflict. In this paper, through the analysis of the current China utility model system and compared with the South Korean utility model system, review the role and character of the patent evaluation report system, and through the actual cases of the utility model patent infringement litigation, analysis possible variates from the decision of patent evaluation report, to find out the reason of the patent evaluation report system being in conflict with the invalidation system, and research on the effectiveness for protecting Utility Model with China's Patent Evaluation Report.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.125-167
• /
• 2003

ADR program is designed to solve the problem such as the increase of suits and decision delayed. ADR program has the several significances, decreasing inappropriate cost as time and burden of courts, providing an approachable measure of relief and more efficient tool for settlement of dispute. Particularly ADR program satisfies the needs Intellectual property disputes need specialists that are versed in the subjected problem and, need to be souled quickly in confidence. And parties concerned are not good at the strict judicial procedure in courts, At this point, ADR program holds some advantages over court proceeding for intellectual property disputes. Specialists can be selected as arbitrators or mediator; Cofidentiality may be preserved; Flexibility allows settlement based on mutual commercial interests; Single solution is possible for multiple disputes involving parties from different countries. However, ADR program has not been properly used in. Korea, which is due to not only the lack of understanding the ADR program, but the poor number of filings and settlements. Intermediaries are not professional and also they do not take active hands in disputes. Sometimes, their fairness is asked as peacemakers. Eventually, it is said that this program is not enough to settle international disputes. To activate the ADR program, we can propose the ADR program annexed to court for example. And we can introduce the conciliation and arbitration to disputes in intellectual property. Traditionally arbitration has been a crucial issue in intellectual property disputes. In that intellectual property rights are granted by the local sovereign power, many legal systems in the past maintained the position that the existence, extent, meaning and application of such rights could only be definitively decided by the granting authority or the courts of that country. There is wide recognition that the arbitration of intellectual property is desirable. The law in most of the major countries has been changed in recent years in favor of arbitrability of intellectual property rights. We can also propose ADR on-line.