• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.51-66
• /
• 2016

This paper considers how various types of patent disputes can be more efficiently resolved through arbitration, rather than litigation. For this analysis, it takes three types of patent disputes as a control sample - contractual disputes, infringement disputes and FRAND disputes - and assess how these disputes can be better resolved through arbitration in terms of several criteria, namely, the suitability of the decision-makers, the number of forums in which disputes have to separately decided and enforced, procedural flexibility and confidentiality. The paper takes into consideration that certain types of patent disputes, such as infringement disputes and FRAND disputes are unlikely to be subject to pre-existing arbitration agreements. In these types of disputes, parties may make the decision between arbitration and litigation based on strategic and tactical concerns, rather than legal ones. The paper concludes that, given this limitation, it is not possible to categorically state whether arbitration is more suitable than litigation for resolving patent disputes. The most sensible course to follow in adopting arbitration for patent disputes is for legal advisors to be familiar with the intricate benefits and pitfalls of arbitration in patent disputes, and to actively consider referring a dispute to arbitration over litigation after a dispute has arisen.

• Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy
• /
• 제7권1호
• /
• pp.190-206
• /
• 2018

This article focuses on the legal systems and practice of intellectual property protection in Japan and China, including the relating civil litigation and administrative litigation procedures. The challenge of balancing the relationship between an invalidation trial and an invalid defense during the process of civil patent infringement litigation is a common issue to be solved in both Japan and China. In addition, it is quite usual that the IP products are being imported and exported across the borders due to the expansion of international trade. Accordingly, one of the most symbolic and difficult issues is how to balance the development of international trade and IP protection in each country. In other words, there is a practical issue regarding whether a parallel import of patented products is acceptable to a country or not. The key to determining this issue depends on the judgment of international exhaustion.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제57권
• /
• pp.79-108
• /
• 2013

International transactions of plant and construction project need to time to time for completing the contract. During the performing the contract there may arise many claims and disputes it should be settled rapidly for processing schedule of works. However, arbitration and litigation for settlement of dispute are inappropriate in time and expense under the specifications of plant and construction project. Dispute boards are one of the successful resolution method of dispute prior to litigation or arbitration. If the dispute board was failed, of course, it may be allowed to continue into litigation or arbitration. As the creative methods of parties agreement, dispute boards may be expected to avoid claims and dispute in long and medium international contract. The purpose of this paper is to explore the specification and limitations of dispute boards that may clear disputes under long and medium contract of construction and procurement. It needs to be understand to determine whether is the useful methods for resolving dispute in the international project. This paper considers the specific natures of dispute board and its rules, procedures and problems including ICC and FIDIC for the contract of long and medium transaction.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제77권
• /
• pp.91-112
• /
• 2018

Mediation is one of several alternatives to litigation or arbitration. It is the most informal of the alternatives and the only one that gives the parties control over the outcome. The mediator in mediation is there to help the parties persuade each other that it is in their best interests to settle. As several advantages of mediation, it is considered as the fastest way to resolve a dispute because procedures associated with litigation are not imported into the process. In mediation, the client's resources are focused on resolving the dispute as opposed to building armaments of evidence to buttress legal and factual positions. The AAA commercial mediation rules and operations in the USA are very successful owing to professional training for mediators and simple procedures for mediation to the public. Comparison with USA mediation, KCAB mediation system has several weak points. KCAB mainly deals with administrative matters related to Foreign Trade Law. Therefore, it is necessary for KCAB to come up with more improved international commercial mediation. For example, mediation should be promoted to the public as who easily rely on litigation or arbitration. Second, Setting a rule for easy access to mediation is needed by bench marking AAA's mediation guidelines and operations. Third, professional mediators should be developed by establishing relevant ADR course in law schools. This article investigated some differences of mediation system between KCAB in Korea and AAA in USA, and present some suggestions in order to promote International commercial mediation in KCAB.

• 국제학술발표논문집
• /
• The 1th International Conference on Construction Engineering and Project Management
• /
• pp.693-698
• /
• 2005

Evaluation of construction claims history can provide insights to improvement opportunities in a capital project portfolio. This study analyzed construction litigation claims extracted from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) history involving the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) from 1995-2004. Twenty-four total cases were examined over this period. Both "primary" causes and "root" causes were identified and compared to 666 litigation cases reviewed by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). Based on the analysis, strategies for resolving future disputes are recommend using a 'hybrid' process prior to litigation.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제29권3호
• /
• pp.39-52
• /
• 2019

There are various factors to consider when parties to an international agreement draft a dispute resolution clause in their written contract. These factors can be classified into two categories. The first category is about the parties and the nature of the contract, such as the parties' places of business and whether the contract contains a simple transaction or has a complicated nature. The second category is about the applicable rules of the parties' places of business or performance such as the private international law, service of process rules, and enforcement of court judgment and arbitration award rules. When parties to an international contract agree to a litigation, they normally choose a forum court and a governing law. In selecting a forum court and a governing law, the parties must consider private international law, service of process rules, and enforcement of judgement rules of candidate forums. In case the parties agree to an arbitration, they have to choose between institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration. For ad hoc arbitration, parties still need to further agree on which arbitration rules to use, and in which place the arbitration shall take place. Mediation involves a similar kind of decision as with arbitration. Traditionally, national courts of the parties' places of business have been used as litigation forums in dispute resolution clauses but, recently, arbitration is being increasingly employed as an alternative dispute resolution method in international contracts. Moreover, there have been international efforts to utilize mediation as a dispute resolution method in international commercial issues. Rather than simply taking a dispute resolution clause provided in a sample written contract, parties to an international contract must carefully consider various relevant factors in order to insert a dispute resolution clause which will work well for a particular contract.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제20권
• /
• pp.343-365
• /
• 2003

Dispute plays a key role in maintaining the desirable performance of trade transaction. In an effort to stay competitive in a global marketplace, the Korean companies need to become more aware of alternatives to costly and time-consuming litigation. Korean companies, therefore, should be more concerned with ADR(Alternative Dispute Resolution) system and should utilize ADR to settle their disputes effectively and efficiently. ADR encompasses all process of dispute resolution as a substitute for the traditional litigation. Generally, three kinds of ADR are available in Korea: Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. This article investigates reasons why ADR isn't used well in Korea and suggests ways how ADR can work best in international trade disputes. To expand ADR system in international trade disputes, it is very important for both the company and the scholar to recognize the concept and usefulness of ADR system. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board also must help both Korean companies and scholars recognize the mechanism of dispute resolution and utilize ADR system in international trade disputes.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.67-98
• /
• 2009

Recently there are many cases on the intellectual property dispute. Among them some cases are solved through mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration hold some advantage over court proceeding for intellectual property dispute. However the traditional litigation system has material limitation to settle down international intellectual property dispute. Without arbitration, litigation in court would be the only choice in case of no consensual settlement between the disputing parties. However, once being aware of the usefulness of the arbitration, people in international business widely realize that arbitration is generally preferred to litigation. Mediation is a method of settling dispute outside of court setting and many mediation committee are established since 1986 in Korea. Arbitrability has been a crucial issue in the intellectual property dispute. In most developed countries including the U.S.A. and Switzerland, arbitrability in the intellectual property dispute has been changed in recent years by law. Now in resolving the dispute with international intellectual property is needed for legal research, experience, working practices and knowledge of the intellectual property industry and so on.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.235-262
• /
• 2004

A study on the international Jurisdiction to Application in Electronic Transaction Disputes The implementation of electronic commerce raises some new legal and institutional problem so it is necessary for us to prepare alternatives. As the development of electronic commerce is difficult without smooth settlement of dispute the pursue of smooth settlement of dispute is very important menu. while the most common method relating to the settlement of dispute is litigation. them relating to the litigation, the subject of jurisdiction and the subject of governing laws should be resolved above all. Further more in addition, the old act prior act was regarded as insufficient in that it lacked rules on international jurisdiction to adjudicate, or international adjudicatory jurisdiction, where as the expectation of the public was that the private international law should function as the basic law of the legal relational encompassing rules on international jurisdiction given the increase of It international disputes. for the move the private international law has also attracted more attention from the korean. Therefore, International jurisdiction to application concerned about electronic commerce should be prepared and the environment to keep electronic commerce secure and stable be guaranteed. And we should make plans to protect companies and consumers and should make efforts to expand electronic commerce infrastructure.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제43권5호
• /
• pp.139-158
• /
• 2018

오늘날의 무역구조는 이전보다 훨씬 다변화 되었고, 각국의 수출입액이 늘어남에 따라 무역분쟁의 내용도 훨씬 복잡해지고 있는 것은 물론 분쟁의 수 또한 증가하고 있다. 이러한 분쟁을 해결하는 수단으로서 소송과 중재를 비롯한 협상, 알선, 조정 등이 활용되고 있지만 소송이나 중재에 의한 해결방법은 관할권, 거리상의 제약, 비용과 절차의 복잡성 등 그 어려움이 따른다. 또한 협상이나 알선에 의할 경우, 효력이나 제도상의 미비점 등 그 한계성을 드러내면서 이들을 대체할 수 있는 방법이 요구되어 왔다. 이에 ADR의 한 형태로 등장한 조정은 조정인이 분쟁당사자 사이에서 중립인의 역할을 하면서 당사자가 자주적으로 사건을 해결하도록 돕는 제도이다. 조정은 비밀보장에 의한 신뢰구축, 준거법과 재판관할권의 비적용, 절차의 간이성, 미래지향적인 결과도출이라는 장점이 중점적으로 부각되고 있어 미국, 일본을 비롯한 중국 등에서는 일찍이 무역분쟁의 해결수단으로 이용되고 있다. 하지만 우리나라에서는 아직 조정의 유용성이 널리 알려지지 못하였고, 그 이용 또한 저조한 상태이다. 본고는 조정이 어떠한 제도인지를 설명하는 것과 함께 무역분쟁의 해결수단으로서 조정이 지닌 유용성을 밝힘으로써 향후 분쟁발생 시 본 제도의 적극적 이용을 도모하고자 하는 취지에서 연구를 진행하였다.