• Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.35-44
• /
• 2018

Unlike other lawsuits, patent infringement litigation is a very difficult case to grasp without expert knowledge of the patented technology. The Patent Agent Act seems to recognize the legal representation of patent agent in Article 8, but the Constitutional Court and the Court have refused to recognize patent agent's legal representation right in the patent infringement suit. In this regard, constant controversy is taking place among patent agents and lawyers. This study examines the measures to enhance the effectiveness and professionalism of patent litigation in patent infringement litigation. This study analyzes the role of patent attorneys in patent infringement lawsuits in major countries and derive rational alternatives. As a result, it is inappropriate to restrict the attorneys' automatic acquisition of patent attorneys' qualifications or revise the patent attorneys' law in relation to the patent attorney's right of proxy. In the case of litigation parties, it is a desirable alternative to introduce a revised patent attorney system for the fundamental problem solving and to allow the litigants to reasonably choose the litigation agent.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.265-299
• /
• 2018

Patent litigation has been considered as a tool to protect and facilitate innovation. Ironically, yet, the misguided uses of patent litigation as a strategic tool for vigilance against competitors are acting as a hindrance for innovation. Previous studies show that the better the quality of a patent, the higher the chance of the patent being litigated. Therefore, it is particularly important for the innovating firms to take strategic precautions to minimize the risk of patent litigation. This study investigates the moderating role of firms' past alliance experiences on the relationship between patent quality and patent litigation from the perspective of a defendant. A unique dataset on patents, infringement lawsuits, and firm performances in the printed electronics industry confirms that firms' previous alliance experiences mitigate the impact of patent quality on infringement litigation. For instance, the results confirm that the presence of past alliance experience reduces the litigation rate by 33% for firms with median-quality patents. This paper makes two major contributions. First, it contributes to the literature on alliance experience by confirming its role as a reputation in mitigating future litigations. Second, this paper contributes to the literature on patent litigation by identifying a unique moderator, i.e., alliance experience, on the linkage between patent quality and litigation. An innovating firm is likely to become an alleged infringer under a false accusation. Therefore, this paper focuses on firms that partake in infringement lawsuits unwillingly. Despite the importance, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate patent litigations from the perspective of defendants.

• Asia Marketing Journal
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.55-73
• /
• 2016

With continuous news headlines related to patents in the public media, awareness of patents' value is spreading, and patents are valuable not only to a firm but also to consumers. Therefore, this study makes an effort to explore the theoretical mechanism of the effects of patent infringement litigation (PIL) on customers. More specifically, this study examines the influence of PIL on customer-based brand equity (CBBE) and brand innovation image (BII). Based on this study's findings, PIL's outcomes directly affect BII, which in turn indirectly affects CBBE. That is, people will evaluate a winning brand as a highly innovative brand, which contributes to higher brand equity. However, in regards to PIL's direct effect on CBBE, there are some differences between Apple and Samsung. In the case of Apple, the winner image positively affects only one dimension of CBBE, brand loyalty, while for Samsung, the plaintiff's image negatively affects brand loyalty.

• Journal of Information Management
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.141-159
• /
• 2006

This paper presents the response strategy taken by the both parties who possess and infringe the patent rights in the case of patent litigation occurring in local companies. It is common that many entrepreneurs suffer from patent judgment litigation related to the intellectual property rights. Response strategy on the standpoints of patentees and trespassers are discussed in several cases such as infringement and abuse of patent rights, divulgence of trade secret and invention during employment in small & medium sized enterprises.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.57-72
• /
• 2011

According to Japanese Patent Act, the Japanese Patent Office, administrative organization, was authorized to decide validation of patent. However, Supreme Court of Japan held that a court is able to decide the invalidation of patent in 11th April, 2000, which caused the reform of Japanese Patent Act in June 2004. Reformed Patent Act established the article 104-3 and makes it for a court to decide the patentability where there are grounds for a patent invalidation. Through this amendment to the Patent Act, the legislative system to decide the patent validation has been reorganized and furthermore alleged infringer is allowed to argue against the patent validation by making use of infringement litigation procedure through defenses against patent invalidation as well as invalidation trial procedure for to file a request for a trial for patent invalidation to the Japanese Patent Office. That is to say, the article 104-3 was established in the Japanese Patent Act in the wake of Kilby, and thus a court, which is judicial authority, not administrative disposition agency is also able to decide the patent validation. Thus this article discuss how a court, the authority of which only patent infringement cases fell under, has been authorized to arbitrate cases about the patent validation and the decision of the patent validation in a court.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Software Assessment and Valuation
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.25-35
• /
• 2020

In the Korean litigation system, structural maldistribution of evidence still remains a conundrum. Numerous solutions have been discussed so far and, today, few people deny the need for adopting a system similar to the discovery procedure in the United States. In the intellectual property (IP) domain, a wide range of legislative attempts have been made to improve the litigation system, especially for patent litigation. However, the adoption of discovery in copyright litigation is seldom discussed, despite the fact that copyright infringement lawsuits increasingly involve highly technical issues, especially in case of copyrightable computer programs. The lack of discussion on discovery adoption forms a stark contrast with the active attempts to adapt and adopt discovery procedure for patent litigation. In copyright infringement lawsuits, especially for copyrighted computer programs, securing evidence takes on crucial importance. However, in reality, there are numerous obstacles. Some lawsuits proceed even without properly securing the infringed work. To address this issue, the current litigation system needs to be improved by adopting a procedure similar to discovery. This paper reviews what solutions are being utilized today, and how we should approach the issue.

• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.1-30
• /
• 2020

This paper analyzes how injunctions relate to patent hold-up problems. To this end, we present a simple model of licensing negotiations between a patent holder and a downstream firm in the shadow of litigation. More specifically, we consider the situation in which an injunction is granted as a matter of course if a patent is found valid and infringed upon in litigation, but the patent holder may be under-compensated due to aspects of the patent remedy system other than injunctions. We show that if the downstream user is unaware of the patent before any investment in initially designing its product, the patent hold-up problems created by injunction threats are worrisome when (i) the redesign process is costly, (ii) the degree of patent protection (by aspects of the patent remedy system other than injunctions) is sufficiently strong and (iii) the injunction is requested not to practice the patented technology exclusively but to collect excessive patent royalties. Even if the downstream user is aware of the patent before the initial investment, the patent hold-up problems do not disappear. The findings here imply that a discretionary approach is required towards denying injunctions against patent infringement. If the degree of patent protection is not sufficiently strong, denying injunctions can exacerbate the under-compensation problem. However, once patent protection improves enough (not necessarily perfectly), we may see a surge of patent hold-up problems, and it would be better to apply alternative patent remedies in place of injunctions when necessary. Lastly, we discuss several possible alternatives to injunctions and their pros and cons.