• 예술인문사회 융합 멀티미디어 논문지
• /
• 제8권4호
• /
• pp.35-44
• /
• 2018

특허 침해소송은 다른 소송들과는 다르게 그 특허기술의 실체파악 없이는 사안의 파악이 매우 힘든 소송이다. 변리사법은 제8조에서 변리사의 특허침해소송에 대한 소송대리권을 인정하고 있는 듯 보이지만 전통적으로 헌법재판소와 법원은 특허 등 침해소송에 대하여 변리사의 소송대리권을 인정하지 않는 입장이다. 이에 대해서 변리사와 변호사간에 끊임없는 논쟁이 이루어지고 있다. 본 연구에서는 특허침해소송에서 소송대리의 효율성 및 전문성을 높이는 방안을 탐색한다. 이를 위해 주요국의 특허침해소송에서 변리사의 역할을 분석하여 합리적 대안을 도출한다. 그 결과 변호사의 변리사 자격 자동취득을 제한하거나 변리사의 소송대리권과 관련하여 변리사법을 개정하는 방안은 적절하지 못한 것으로 나타났다. 소송당사자의 입장에서 근본적인 문제 해결을 위해 수정된 특허전문변호사 제도를 도입하고 소송당사자들이 합리적으로 소송대리인을 선택하게 하는 것이 바람직한 대안인 것으로 분석되었다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• pp.121-147
• /
• 2016

Factual issues in most patent litigation are related to very complicated techniques. Thus, the courts has emphasised that the technology in dispute has to be read and understood through the eyes of a person to whom it is directed. Therefore, among the various processes in federal litigation, most litigation in the field of patent infringement relies on at least some expert evidence. This paper focuses on issues regarding patent dispute evidence, and explore whether there are unresolved issues in evidential rules and procedures of patent proceedings. Further, this paper seeks to demonstrate that both the parties and the courts in patent disputes generally benefit from the current evidence system. However, in a number of Australian cases, the scope of expert evidence in patent cases has been strictly limited. Australian Government identified uncertain issues associated with the present patent enforcement system, due to factors such as a low level of knowledge about what patent rights entail, the high degree of uncertainty of outcome in legal proceedings, etc. Arbitration shall be reviewed and suggested as an alternative to tackling the ongoing problems in the trial system.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제34권1호
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2024

"Arbitration" is a procedure to settle a dispute over property rights or disputes based on non-property rights that the parties can resolve through a reconciliation, not by a judgment of a court, but by an award of an arbitrator, and is a kind of Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR). Arbitration is the most representative and efficient ADR system in many fields, so by activating it, disputes can be resolved smoothly and ultimately, and social costs caused by a heavy increase in lawsuit can be reduced. Arbitration costs are often evaluated as 'cheap', but in reality, they can be similar to or exceed litigation costs. Nevertheless, unlike the Civil Procedure Act, which stipulates the litigation aid system for those who are hard to pay litigation costs, the Arbitration Act or the Arbitration Industry Promotion Act does not have the arbitration aid system for those who are hard to pay arbitration costs. However, considering ① the utility of arbitration compared to other dispute resolution procedures, such as litigation, ② the possibility of resolving trial delays through vitalizing arbitration, ③ the need to guarantee access to arbitration, ④ the feasibility of revitalizing arbitration by the arbitration aid system, it is necessary to introduce the Arbitration Aid System. To explain the details of the Arbitration Aid System, a person who intends to apply for arbitration or a party who continues arbitration could be the applicant. Regarding the judge, this paper suggests the establishment of a council for arbitration aid to prevent the possibility of prejudgment by the arbitral tribunal. Also, if the council accepts the application for arbitration aid, it would be appropriate for the arbitral tribunal to determine the allocation of arbitration costs considering the decision of the council and to include it into arbitral awards.

• 한국조경학회지
• /
• 제48권4호
• /
• pp.8-18
• /
• 2020

본 연구는 건설산업기본법, 민사소송법 등을 적용한 대법원 판례중 조경관련 판례들을 주제별로 선별하였으며, 연도별, 소송원인에 따른 분야별 유형 그리고 소송 종류별로 나누어 조경관련 소송의 시계열적인 경향과 주요 특성을 살펴보았다. 연도별 분석결과, 조경면허가 발행되는 시기와 비슷한 1977년부터 본격적으로 소송사례들이 등장하기 시작하였다. 소송원인에 따른 유형을 계획, 시공, 관리로 나누어 분석하였으며, 그 중 '계획'이 전체 409건중 217건으로 가장 많이 조회되었다. 건설시행과정별로 다양한 판례들이 조회되었는데, 이 중 일부는 조경관련 법률적 기준이 불분명하여 발생한 사례가 조회되었다. '관리'분야에서는 안전사고 및 범죄와 같은 사례들이 조회되었는데, 해당 공간의 주된 이용객들과 법률적 정의 및 목적 등이 판단의 근거로 작용되어졌다. 사건종류별 분석결과, 조경관련 판례들은 행정사건들이 많았으며, 관리유형에서는 형사사건의 비율이 가장 높았다. 본 연구 결과는 조경 전반에 걸친 판례들을 살펴보았으며, 분야별로 유형화를 진행하였다는 점에서 일반인들도 활용할 수 있는 기초자료를 제공하였다는 것에 의의가 있다. 향후 분쟁의 저감 및 해결을 위한 법 개정 및 다양한 연구가 이뤄져야 할 것이며, 이를 위해 판례의 공개 확대가 필요하다고 판단된다.

• 지식경영연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.1-25
• /
• 2020

Although patents have mainly been considered as the results of the invention process, of late their value as strategic assets have increasingly been emphasized. Consequently, the competition for patents among firms has intensified, and the number of patent disputes have been steadily increasing. Patent disputes, which cause enormous expense and resource utilization, increase uncertainty and have been considered as a threat or problem for the firms involved. Patent disputes are expected to have a significant impact on the decision making about subsequent innovation activities. This study attempts to analyze the effect of patent disputes on the subsequent innovative activities of the firms that are sued. After experiencing litigation as defendants, we examine their subsequent patenting strategies. According to the results of the study, firms who are experiencing patent litigation are more likely to achieve high-quality patents and cite recent technology when they apply for patents. Meanwhile, patent litigation experience has been shown to negatively affect the amount of subsequent patents applied. This study increases understanding by examining whether patent disputes, which have been mainly recognized negatively as obstacles, can be an opportunity that comes during a crisis.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.123-148
• /
• 1998

Recently many controversies originate for varies reasons, ranging from normal market competition to honest disagreements about rights. Disputes also arise from the clash between institutions and individuals. A free society should provide many systems for resolving controversies. We think of the courts as being primary, but, of course, they are not. In Korea, and in most other parts of the world, disagreements are resolved informally, without the need for judicial intervention. Settlements are worked out privately, usually without lawyers and certainly without judges. Most of judges are finding it difficult to cope with the needs and demands of society. Many businessmen who no longer want to get involved in lawsuits, are looking for alternative methods for resolving their disputes. However, there are actually two systems, litigation and arbitration only, to resolve disputes with binding both parties concerned. Litigation emphasizes on the equity and the justice with allowing three time's judgment for the resonable resolution, and arbitration, which is not subject to appeal, stress on the economic settlement rather than justice. Arbitration process results in a final and binding decisions. Although arbitration is a voluntary procedures that is created by the parties themselves, arbitration differs from mediation and conciliation because of its binding power. Arbitration is today coming into fashion as our primary methods for settling disputes. No company wants to have its funds tied up for long periods. Many parties prefer that the decision be final, rather than facing the prospect of extended appellate litigation. Therefore, government must encourage parties to settle their disputes by arbitration instead of litigation.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제8권1호
• /
• pp.179-211
• /
• 2007

To succeed the claim of medical malpractice litigation, the patient as a plaintiff should establish the medical fault of a physician as a defendant, and the causation between the fault and damages. Because of the extraordinary nature of medical province, however, this application of a legal principles is rigorous with the patient. In addition, given the causation between the validation of physician's fault and damage is not attested, patient is not awarded anything. In order to overcome a difficulty of patient's verification and ensure the right to fair process, it was demonstrated the lightening of burden of proof in medical malpractice litigation and the acceptance of the responsibility for an illegal act in a prescribed range in the absence of the causation between the physician's fault and damage. This paper deals with the judgement of causation and burden of proof in medical malpractice litigation, and the acceptance of responsibility in the absence of the causation between the physician's fault and damage. Also, this study recommends a tendency of our precedent through the comparative case method of ours and Japan.

• 정보관리연구
• /
• 제37권4호
• /
• pp.141-159
• /
• 2006

논문에서는 지식재산권 문제로 특허심판소송으로 기업인들이 많은 피해를 입은 경험사례를 바탕으로 한 실태분석 결과를 나타냈다. 우리나라 기업에서 느끼는 특허소송에 대한 특허권침해와 관련하여 특허권자 및 침해자 입장에서 취해야 할 대응전략을 제시했다. 중소기업에서 특허권을 침해하는 경우, 특허권을 남용하는 경우, 영업비밀을 누설하는 경우, 직무발명을 누설하는 경우 등에 관하여 특허권자와 침해자 입장에 대한 대응책을 제시하였다.

• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.43-83
• /
• 2013

Medical treatment has great potential for conflict. Even the best-trained doctors can commit medical malpractice that result in continuing physical or mental disabilities or even death. Medical conflicts have been increasing over years. The medical conflicts between patient and medical professionals that result from medical professionals' mistakes are often fueled by a violation on the pretext of the injuries form medical malpractice and can lead to litigation. The litigation usually cost a lot of money and time. The extension of the litigation period as well as expensive cost and lack of medical knowledge placing a great burden on patients. Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) is more efficient than litigation. In 1988, the medical dispute mediation system has been introduces as the Act on Remedy for Damage from Medical Accident and Medical Dispute Mediation by Korean Medical Association came into effect after 23 years of enactment efforts. Medical Dispute Mediation Act(hereinafter referred to as the "MDMA") has finally entered into force from 8 April 2012. The purpose of the MDMA is to promptly and fairly redress injuries caused by medical malpractice and create a stable environment for medical services of public health or medical professionals by providing for matters regarding the mediation and arbitration of medical disputes(MDMA ${\S}1$). In an effort to secure the fair, speedy and inexpensive resolution of every malpractice case, the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency(hereinafter referred to as the "K-MEDI") was established. Following the MDMA, the K-MEDI shall endeavor to ensure the medical dispute mediation or arbitration proceedings are conducted in a prompt, fair, and efficient manner, and patients and medical professionals shall attend proceedings in good faith with mutual trust and understanding when they participate in medical dispute mediation or arbitration proceedings.