• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권3호
• /
• pp.155-184
• /
• 2015

This paper addresses the question of what kinds of dispute resolution choices can effectively handle complex intellectual property disputes, given the rising importance of IP, the increasing frequency and complexity of IP disputes, and the lack of research on dispute resolution strategies. For this analysis, the study adopted the analytic hierarchy process approach, which covers complex, multi-criteria decision problems, to quantify the expert's judgments on IP dispute resolution choice. Its results show that the effectiveness of resolution methods differs, depending on the type of IP dispute classified into seven issues, which are (i) requirement for validity of IP right, (ii) range and duration of IP right, (iii) transfer of IP right, (iv) licensing, (v) use of IP right, (vi) declaration of IP infringement, and (vii) estimation of damage. The disputes over IPR ownership and IP infringement remain challenging issues in due to strong requirement of the cross-border enforcement. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), especially arbitration, is determined to be a more effective method to deal with international IP disputes, but various advanced types of ADR techniques should be further developed to deal with the increasing complexity of IP disputes.

• 한국벤처창업학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국벤처창업학회 2007년도 추계학술대회
• /
• pp.15-43
• /
• 2007

본 연구의 목적은 해외지식재산권 침해 현황을 분석하고 그 대응방안을 제시하는데 있다. $1990{\sim}2005$년 동안 출원된 특허를 대상으로 2005년까지 발생한 권리분쟁은 모두 3,508회 발생하였으며, 이 중 무효심판(전부 무효 포함)이 1,903회로 가장 많은 것으로 나타났다. 소극적 권리범위 확인 심판은 1,001회 발생하여 발생된 분쟁의 28.5%를 차지하고 있으며, 특허권자가 권리를 침해받은 경우에 제기하는 적극적 권리범위 확인심판은 366회 발생하였다. 일본은 권리분쟁이 모두 275회 발생하여 다른 국가의 특허권자에 비해 분쟁횟수가 가장 높고, 그 중 무효심판이 107회로 38.9% 정정심판이 두 번째로 많은 83회 발생하여 30.2%를 차지하고 있다. 미국은 일본에 이어 두 번째로 분쟁횟수가 많으며, 무효심판이 66회로 무려 64.7%에 달하며, 정정심판은 21회 발생하여, 20.6%를 차지하고 있다. 해외지식재산권 침해 대응방안은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 정부의 대응방향이다. 해외지식재산권보호센터 기능의 강화, 특허권 침해물품의 국경조치 강화, 국제특허분쟁연구회 활동 강화, 국제특허분쟁 전문가의 양성, 특허소송 관할법원의 집중과 심판제도의 마련, 사회적 자본으로서 신뢰 구축 등을 수행하여야 한다. 둘째, 기업의 대응방향이다. 지식재산중시 경영(No Patent No Future), 출원 및 분쟁대응의 전문화, 특허풀(Patent Pool) 형성 및 표준화에 적극 참여, 기술이전 및 라이센스 계약 관리의 전문화 등을 기하여야 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권3호
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2021

General lawsuits can be chosen as a method of resolving patent disputes. However, a significant amount of time and money is wasted on litigation until the dispute is resolved. The Intellectual Property Framework Act in Korea requires the government to simplify litigation procedures and improve litigation systems to resolve intellectual property disputes quickly and fairly. As a result, accurate and timely resolution of patent disputes is given importance by the Korean government. Interest in arbitration as an alternative method of dispute resolution is growing. Although dispute resolution through arbitration is effective, the issue of resolving patent disputes through arbitration can lead to the arbitrability of patent disputes. It is therefore necessary to examine arbitrability of patent contracts and validity disputes. Korea has made efforts to reflect the model arbitration law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law for quick judicial resolution of patent disputes. Korea has also strengthened related systems for alternative resolutions. However, improving the arbitration system will necessitate a thorough examination of the systems and practices of the United States which is the country in the forefront of intellectual property. This paper examines the arbitrability of Korea's patent dispute and makes recommendations for more efficient dispute resolution system changes.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제34권1호
• /
• pp.51-74
• /
• 2024

Korea continues to invest in the IT industry and is currently regarded as one of the five major powerhouses in the field of intellectual property. However, it is evaluated that this status is only limited, and the level of intellectual property protection and dispute resolution does not reach a level commensurate with the status of one of the five major intellectual property powers. To address these problems, the Korean government has enacted the Arbitration Industry Promotion Act in 2017, which aims to strengthen national competitiveness by fostering the arbitration system as an industry and provide systematic support so that the arbitration industry can become a future growth engine. In addition, in accordance with Article 3 of the 「Arbitration Industry Promotion Act」, the Minister of Justice must establish "the Basic Plan for Arbitration Industry Promotion" every 5 years. Great efforts must be put into establishing an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) system at the KCAB for five years from 2024 to 2028, the Second Basic Plan for the Promotion of the Arbitration Industry period. Under these circumstances, this study presents implications and improvement measures for the development of the intellectual property-related arbitration system to protect Korea's intellectual property rights and contribute to more active intellectual property creation. In particular, this study proposes a plan to build an one-stop digital platform for KCAB to implement an efficient ODR system.

• 기술혁신학회지
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.23-45
• /
• 2008

본 연구의 목적은 해외 지식재산권 분쟁현황을 분석하고 그 대응방안을 제시하는데 있다. 특허 분쟁(국내/국외)은 2006년 7월말 현재 청구건수 기준으로 2,044건이 보고되고 있다. 이 중 외국 기업과의 특허분쟁(2000-2006)은 전기전자 분야 47건, 화학약품분야 9건, 기계분야 2건 등 58건으로 나타나고 있다. 본 연구는 주요 국제 특허분쟁 사례, 즉 우리나라의 기업체가 외국기업체를 상대로 특허침해 소송을 제기하였거나 소송을 제기 당한 사례를 전기.전자 분야 47건 중 27건, 화학약품분야 9건 중 5건, 기계분야 2건 등 34건을 기술 분야별로 정리하였다. 이들 사례의 공통점은 대개 거액을 지불하고 분쟁을 타결한 경우로서 지식재산권 관리의 중요성과 분쟁 시 정부나 기업이 적절한 대응을 하여야 함을 시사하고 있다. 우리나라가 해외 지식재산권 분쟁에 대응할 수 있는 방안은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 정부의 대응방향이다. 특허권 침해물품의 국경조치 강화, 해외지식재산권보호센터 기능의 강화 등을 수행하여야 한다. 둘째, 기업의 대응방향이다. 지식재산중시 경영(no patent no future), 강한 특허권 창출 및 전략적 분쟁 대응, 특허 풀(patent pool) 형성 및 표준화에 적극 참여, 기술이전 및 라이센스 계약 관리의 전문화 등을 기하여야 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권3호
• /
• pp.121-140
• /
• 2019

First, the purpose of this research is to review the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) regulations in Korea to resolve disputes which can arise in international e-commerce in the near future. Second, this research tries to look for alternative solutions to dispute resolutions according to these regulations. Third, this research pursues to enhance the effectiveness of business deals by providing efficient and satisfactory dispute resolution methods for e-commerce business. Furthermore, this study evaluates the definition of global e-commerce by comparing Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) with Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Through analyzing the domestic ODR system and ADR system, this research could boost the employment of settlements in small-sized disputes through easy and convenient consumer access to both ODR and ADR procedures. The enhancement of the competitiveness of Korean companies in the global market is estimated to take place as a result. This research is estimated to provide benefits to our businesses both domestically and internationally by using ODR regulations and ADR methods. Moreover, this research is anticipated to verify usefulness in terms of consumer protection by advancing consumers' access to dispute solution authorities locally and abroad.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제31권2호
• /
• pp.77-98
• /
• 2021

International commercial mediation of intellectual property rights fully meets the interests of the parties in such disputes in terms of their needs for neutral forum of dispute resolution, cost-effective settlement, objective opinion of relevant experts, internationally enforceable solution. In addition, as a procedural flexibility, respected self-determination of the parties, exploration of possible creative business solutions, maintenance of business relationship and confidentiality of mediation are major characteristics which can be competitively differentiated from the lawsuit or arbitration. The settlement agreement as a result of the WIPO mediation has an effect of contract while the settlement agreement as a result of most domestic ones has an effect of judicial reconciliation which can be domestically enforced. The latter is not subject to the application of the Singapore Convention on Mediation which establishes a harmonized legal framework for the right to invoke settlement agreements as well as for their enforcement. The WIPO international mediation system and its experience may be a good reference for Korea to take an initiative to establish a globally competitive international mediation system in the area of intellectual property rights.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제9권3호
• /
• pp.323-341
• /
• 2007

International trade conflict has been increased since WTO has appeared. Like this, the cause that the number of international trade conflict has been increased is by means of enlargement of agreements range. But some new facts have been added. They are Anti-dumping, subsidy, Countervailing duty, Safeguard, the norm of intellectual property right, the procedure of permitting importing products, Technical Barriers, agricultural products, and the area of textile. Since Japanese government has decided to give lavor import quarters to China without permission of Korea, Korean government formally presented the system of lavor import quarter to WTO DSB due to WTO agreement disobedience of Japan. Accordingly, this paper has the following purpose; to analyze situation on fiber dispute of Japan. Some methods about trade barrier against Japan need to be solved from another viewpoint owing to lavor IQ dispute.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.1013-1032
• /
• 2000

At present, the scale of Electronic Commerce through internet has been rapidly increasing due to the development of information & communication technology, and aggregated to 2.4 billion dollar in America last year (1998). The market scale of worldwide electronic commerce is also presumed to be about 130 billion dollar in 2000, and to occupy more than 20% of the whole world trade in world 2020. Since the right of trademark, despite of being effective only in registered nations on the principle of territorialism, is unified on the cyber space of internet without domestic barrier or local limitation which make it easier to conduct the distribution of information rapidly through the address-internet domain name, those are very important that the systematic dispute-solving plan on problems such as decision of its Act and international jurisdiction to be established, in an effort to prevent the newly emerging dispute instances such as trademark infringement and improper competitiveness. In addition, it is natural that on the threshold of the electronic commerce age which formed with an unified area without the worldwide specific regulation, each country including us makes haste with the enactment of "electronic commerce Act" aiming at coming into force in 1999, in keeping with getting through "non-tariff law on electronic commerce" by U. S. parliament on May, 1998. In view of the properties of electronic commerce transactions through internet, there are the large curtailment of distributive channel, surmounting of restrictions on transaction area, space and time and the easy feedback with consumer and the cheap-required capital, from which the problems may arise - registration of trademark, the trademark infringement of domain name and the protection of prestigious trademark. Therefore, it is necessary to take the counter-measure, with a view of reviewing the infringement of trademark and domain name and the instances of each national precedent and to preventing the disputes. The improvement of the persistent system should be needed to propel the harmonious protection of those holding trademark right's credit and demanders' expectant profit by way of the righteous use of trademark.