• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.23-45
• /
• 2008

The object of this study is to present a strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries focusing on international cooperation policy of KIPO and infringement of overseas intellectual property rights on the notion that a policy performed without a long-term plan will not lead to industrial growth in the long run. There is a high possibility that aggressive patent policy and black box strategy of Japanese enterprise can be a burden to Korean enterprises. Thus, a policy should be established against the technology protectionism. The policy can be based on a strategy about international cooperation policy of KIPO and strategy against infringement of overseas intellectual property rights. Of course, collaboration and cooperation will be activated among the advanced countries including technical cooperation. However, a systematic strategy of intellectual property rights should be focused on international cooperation and countermeasure against infringement of overseas intellectual property rights because national interest takes precedence over any other interest especially in case of strategically owing industry. A strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries is as follows. A strategy is required to cope with infringement of overseas intellectual property rights. Korean government has to strengthen the function of overseas intellectual property rights protection center, strengthen boundary restriction of infringement goods, promote international dispute study, train international dispute specialist, construct confidence as social capital etc. Enterprises have to maintain no Patent no Future policy, specialize on application and countermeasure against infringement dispute, participate for formation and standardization of patent pool, strive for specialization regarding technical transfer and license management.

• 한국벤처창업학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2007.11a
• /
• pp.15-43
• /
• 2007

The object of this study is to present a strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries focusing on international cooperation policy of KIPO and infringement of overseas intellectual property rights on the notion that a policy performed without a long-term plan will not lead to industrial growth in the long run. The number of dispute cases of intellectual property rights in Japan ranks first with 275 cases compared to that of other countries. Among the dispute case, the number of validation trial is 107 cases(38.9%), and correction trial is 83 cases(30.2%). The USA ranks second in dispute of intellectual property rights. Among the dispute of intellectual property rights in the USA, the number of validation trial is 66 cases(64.7%), and correction trial is 21 cases(20.6%). A strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries is as follows. A strategy is required to cope with infringement of overseas intellectual property rights. Korean government has to strengthen the function of overseas intellectual property rights protection center, strengthen boundary restriction of infringement goods, promote international dispute study, train international dispute specialist, solve jurisdiction problem of patent court system, improve trial system, construct confidence as social capital etc. Enterprises have to maintain No Patent No Future policy, specialize on application and countermeasure against infringement dispute, participate for formation and standardization of Patent Pool, strive for specialization regarding technical transfer and license management.

• 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.

• Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology
• /
• v.9 no.7
• /
• pp.891-900
• /
• 2019

In this paper, we investigate the relationship between IPR creation and export activity. And we try to examine the effects of IPR use as innovation on export performance. The dataset used in the empirical analysis are the annual "Survey of Business Activity(2006~2014)" panel data which include total of 6,144 samples of firms. Data set includes the sample characteristic such as employee, industry, export performance, possession/use/development of IPR. According to analysis results, this paper confirms that R&D and export activities of firms make positive effects on IPR creation. In addition, this paper finds that IPR use of firms make positive effects on firm's export performance. Exporting firms achieve higher export performance by developing new products and processes to enter and compete in overseas markets. In addition, exporting firms can achieve higher performance by using intellectual property rights to appropriate innovation outcomes in foreign markets and to exclude the possibility of patent disputes in advance.