• 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 Technology Innovation
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.319-354
• /
• 2013

As creative economy gets attention, the capabilities of transforming creative ideas into intellectual property and utilizing it commercially have become important than ever before. Korea is lack of the capabilities of utilizing intellectual property compared to those of accumulating it. This paper focuses on the strategic implication of an injunctive relief, which has a far-reaching impact on firms' business strategies as well as national industrial competitiveness because losers in lawsuits are expelled from markets. It analyzes the Samsung-Apple global IP lawsuits about smartphones and tablet PCs, which have expanded into 9 countries since 2011 when the Apple filed the IP lawsuit against Samsung in the US for the first time. In particular, this paper analyzes the requirements to get the permanent injunctive relief in the lawsuits of intellectual property from reviewing the ruling in the court of the US in 2012 and draws some implications from the perspective of business/industrial strategies. This paper has some limitations in that the lawsuit are still ongoing and it is the first attempt to find out the clue that connects legal and strategic issues in the rulings. Regardless of the limitations, however, this paper expects to contribute to raising the issues as to the importance of harmonizing the capabilities of managing technology with law, in order to survive under the era of creative economy.

• 발명특허
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.36-39
• /
• 2012

'소녀시대' 상표를 의류 식품 미용 통신판매업 등의 9개 분야에 대해 A씨가 2007년 출원하여 현재 상표권을 보유한 상태로 알려졌다. A씨는 자신의 상표권을 기초로 하여 무단으로 온라인 쇼핑몰에 '소녀시대' 상표권 침해 금지 경고장을 보냈으며, 이 사실이 SM측에 알려지면서 '소녀시대' 상표권을 둘러싼 문제가 야기되었다. 소녀시대가 데뷔할 즈음에 '소녀시대'를 출원한 A씨의 상표권은 그대로 유효할까? 아니면 무효화시킬 수 있을까? 끊임없이 문제가 되고 있는 타인의 상표 선점 문제를 어떻게 해결할 것인지에 대해 다시 한번 살펴보고자 한다.