• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.165-190
• /
• 2013

As intellectual property rights are perceived as the key element of creating added values and securing competitiveness, the result of intellectual property rights disputes play an important role in the success of companies. As seen from above strong points of an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system in Chapter III, intellectual property rights disputes increasingly tend to be resolved by ADR rather than litigation. Discussions about and operation of ADR are already being actively carried out in many countries, and major ADR institutions have been acquiring experience in a variety of intellectual property rights disputes. To enhance the use and recognition of ADR as the way of resolving the Intellectual Property Rights disputes in Korea, this study suggested the following three ways. First, domestic ADR institutions, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) will need to establish cooperative systems with prominent overseas institutions to lead the disputing parties to fair resolutions as well as to instill trust in international arbitration institutions. Second, they will need to contribute to the promotion of arbitration systems throughout society by developing and applying a variety of arbitration systems as well as securing a pool of professionals. Finally, the arbitration rules will need to be continuously improved to deal with disputes promptly and reinforce privacy protection.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.249-265
• /
• 2004

In the current digital age, most of the countries in the world recognize the electronic business to be a very prospective area in the future and plan to activate for the preoccupation of the business. As a result, this led a rapid increase of the electronic business volume. Electronic business takes place in the cyber space, using internet. However, the intellectual property rights have a high degree of possibility of being infringed as the digitalized intellectual property is easy to receive, copy and transmit in the cyber space. The language structure on the web, represented by HTML, makes easier to copy the intellectual property. And, as the internet has no national boundary, the infringement of the intellectual property rights is easier regardless of country, which could lead to the commercial disputes between the concerned countries. There are in fact many legal disputes nowadays on the infringement of the intellectual property rights in such field as computer programming, infringement of the copyright, business model patent and infringement of the trademark right on the registered name of the domain. It is, therefore, time now to prepare a new theory or legal system to protect the intellectual property rights on copyright, patent and trademark right so as to comply with the digital environment together with such a splendid growth of "electronic business." USA and Germany are nowadays making a significant movement on the legislation of the electronic business, and this study will focus on the legislative contents, judicial precedents and interpretation of law in the above countries.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.105-124
• /
• 2014

There is a growing interest in resolving intellectual property rights disputes through arbitration rather than in state courts. The internationalization of commercial relations, one of the most significant drivers of the growth of international arbitration in general, encompasses intellectual property relationships as well. In 2014, the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center revised its arbitration rules. The revision is part of a wave of recent updates of institutional arbitral rules. After briefly introducing the WIPO Center as an arbitral institution, this article assesses the features of the WIPO Rules that make them suitable for the particular challenges of IP-related disputes. A second part reviews the salient new aspects of the WIPO Rules from a comparative perspective.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.60
• /
• pp.47-77
• /
• 2013

The way for seller to procure the goods for selling is to produce the goods at his own factory and to buy the manufactured goods from the other company. In order to produce the goods for selling the seller have to obtain the resource from the domestic company or overseas. In the middle of producing the goods to sell, seller may breach the right of a third party based on intellectual property rights. That is to say, seller may use the machine that has not itself been patented and use a process which has been patented by a third party. Seller may manufacture the goods which themselves are subject to the third party industrial property rights. Nowadays it is stressed the importance of intellectual property rights such as a patent, brand, and design. These factors consist of the core elements of the competitiveness of the goods. Many embedded software have been used in the various sector. So the disputes regarding to the intellectual property rights is gradually increasing in number. Article 42 of CISG defines the seller's delivery obligations and liabilities in respect to third party intellectual property rights and claims. It contains a special rule for this similar kind of defective in title, which tries to provide an proper solution to the complex problems caused by such rights and claims in international transactions. When seller will apply this clause to the business fields, there are several points to which seller should give attention. First, Intellectual property is general terms in intangible property rights, encompassing both copyright and industrial property. Which matter fall within the scope of intellectual property? The scope of intellectual property can be inferred from the relevant international conventions, which are based on broad international consensus. Second, Article 42 of CISG governs the relationship between the seller and the buyer, that is to say, questions of who has to bear the risk of third party intellectual property rights. The existence of such intellectual property rights, the remedies available and the question of acquiring goods free of an encumbrances in good faith are outside the scope of the CISG. The governing law regarding to the abovementioned matters is needed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• 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.

• 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.29 no.3
• /
• pp.75-97
• /
• 2019

The growing importance of biological resources as sovereign rights to healthcare, energy, and food has sparked international discussions on Genetic Resources (GRs) and Traditional Knowledge (TK). As the bio-industry continues to grow, research and development utilizing patented biological resources are advocated. Currently, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is actively discussing GRs and TK, and an effective response to national interest has been sought. Of late, there have been growing disputes over issues like ownership, control, and access and benefit-sharing between indigenous peoples and users of GRs and TK resources. Resolution of disputes concerning GRs and TK are thus becoming critical not only to stakeholders such as the indigenous peoples and corporations, but also to third-party users. Due to the weakness of the current IP and court system however, such disputes are not addressed adequately. This paper will address the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), which is an out-of-court dispute resolution system, on conflicting issues regarding GRs and TK. It will consider the WIPO as a forum for ADR and ADR for GRs and TK disputes and it will seek both parties in the dispute to benefit from the use of the ADR process.

• Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.455-470
• /
• 1993

In recent years, the intellectual property rights (IPR) are increasingly becoming trade goods and the subject of international trade negotiations. During the past decades, intellectual properties earned critical importance for economic development in both developed and developing countries. Developed countries, headed by the United States, that recognize the economic value of the IPR in the world market are aggressively seeking for universal protection of IPR throughout the world. Intellectual properties have unique qualities that distinguish them from other tangible goods. Most importantly, they are public goods created on the basis of knowledge and information accumulated throughout human history and shared by different cultures. However, there is a growing tendency that the quality of public goods are being etched away as the property concept in IPR expands. In this paper, I discuss how copyright and patent laws incorporated the concept of property right as natural right to one's intellectual creations in early formation of the laws in Europe. I argue that copyright law and patent law are the historical products resulting from political, economic, and ideological factors interacting in a certain society. A history of copyright and patent points to that the intellectual property rights as natural lights of authors and inventors as argued by developed countries in international disputes, are not universal, but unique historical products. Copyright and patent laws have been shaped and developed as regulatory measures by governments to promote and control industries by providing authors and inventors with monopoly incentives. Since property right was used as a regulatory device it was restricted. This is to enhance the distribution of knowledge and information rather than to ensure the property right as an absolute right.