• Korean Journal of Plant Tissue Culture
• /
• v.28 no.5
• /
• pp.289-296
• /
• 2001

The main objective of this topic is to establish strategies and to plan biotechnology researches which are related to the agricultural improvements especially focusing on the crop breeding in Korea. From 1960's to 1980's government policy had been emphasized to develope high yielding cultivars for the self sufficient supply of the staple food crops. As a result, considerable increase of rice production has been made with accumulating technology and man's powers. Recently genetically modified crops harboring useful characteristics have been developed using biotechnology and released in the developed countries. National research institutes and private companies have been developed biotechnology researches to establish competitive capabilities, however they have not been successfully used in commercialization. Therefore it is necessary to promote the practical. application by connecting molecular technology with conventional breeding. Proposed research projects are; (1) basic researches including plant genome studies, (2) developing new cultivars through gene transformation, (3) screening and producing antioxidants, secondary metabolite substances and edible vaccines. To set a government policy, both domestic and international research trends were reviewed and possibility of success based on the economic view point were discussed. The intellectual property and preservation of environment play a key role to decide the research priority. It is also necessary for us to make one step system for the distribution of research resources such as microorganisms, genes cloned, plant seeds and research informations for promoting research activities.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.7 no.6
• /
• pp.1319-1336
• /
• 2006

The successive round of talks oil Korea-USA Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has continued, and it also has the Intellectual property(IPR) unit. Until now, tile one of most disputing concerns in IPR unit through talks is the limitation of compulsory license of claimed invention. The US is urging to establish a safeguard for IPR, as similar measure of the US, to protecting the profit of the US enterprises through these on-going talks, it is more likely expected to take the offensive about infringement of the patent seriously. Based on the current circumstances, the provision strategy study is needed to obtain Korea inventors the first inventor defense under the US patent law system as well as understand the current Korea's patent law and its revision against that in the US. In patent Law, both nations with first to file system and first to invent system permit a prior user of an invention to continue to use the invention notwithstanding its subsequent patenting by another under being subject to certain qualifications and limitations, even though a patent by a later inventor is granted. Normally, the first inventor defense has been used to compensate the drawbacks of the first to file system. The US patent Law, however, adopting the first to invent system admits the first inventor defense. Therefore, pursuing counteract provision under consideration with Korean patent Law system and research environment along with investigating the reason why the US adopted its patent law system, the scope of right, and the new reform of Act. 2005 of the institute, which promotes the first Korean inventor to possess the defense right of the US, provides certain preparations for Korean companies against the expected offensive from the US ones under the US patent Law system.

• 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.