• 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 Convergence for Information Technology
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.102-108
• /
• 2021

In this research, we would like to understand the measures to be taken in the event of a patent dispute by Chinese companies that are growing rapidly and competing with Korean companies in the global market, at a time when the fusion and compounding technology are accelerating. For this reason, the patent dispute countermeasures shown in the previous research were derived through deep interviews with experts, and a questionnaire survey was conducted with patent practitioners of Chinese companies. As a result of the analysis, the importance of cross licensing, patent invalidation proceedings, proceedings through collaboration with other companies, royalty payments, and patent invalidation proceedings in the case of a patent dispute in the Chinese industry is high. Shown. The results of this study provide practical guidelines to help corporate patent practitioners understand the best course of action in the event of a patent dispute, respond in a timely manner, and save time and money. It seems that it can be done.

• 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 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.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.199-241
• /
• 2004

This paper discusses to what extent the party autonomy can be allowed in intellectual property dispute resolution agreements in determination of governing law, international jurisdiction, and ADR agreement for arbitration, etc. in considering of the territoriality principle of IP. The party autonomy in choice of governing law and jurisdiction can be fully enjoyed in IP contract disputes. However, the freedom of choice is limited to the disputes regarding IF infringement disputes. The party autonomy is denied in the issues of determination of validity of patent or other IP rights. The author seeks the possibility to allow as much freedom in making choice of applicable law or jurisdiction, or entering into arbitration agreement.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.17 no.7
• /
• pp.487-497
• /
• 2017

South Korea needs reorganization of dispute resolution system due to the frequent occurrence of a case that trade secret or technique are leaked. First, the distributed various laws are established and enforced by enacting and enforcing individual laws. Therefore, the redundancy problems, the collision of individual laws, the decline in diversity, integrity, and connectivity are issues. An independent legal system is needed by Act on the Prevention and Protection of Technology Leakage. Thereby, The support system of technological protection that is sprayed in government departments such as the Small and Medium Business Administration, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, the Patent Office, the Fair Trade Commission, the Trade Committee, the National Police Agency, and the Spy Agency integrates and unifies institutionally, and it is necessary to advance a policy with functional division. Second, the Patent Tribunal, the Invention Promotion Act, the Industrial Property Right Dispute Mediation Committee by the patent law, the Industrial Technical Dispute Mediation Committee on the Industrial Technology Outflow Prevention and Protection Law and the Medium and Small Firm Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Committee on Small Business Technology Protection Support Law are installed. However, since it established the integrated law on the Act on the Prevention and Protection of Technology Leakage, it is desirable to set the merged operation of establishment on the Technical Dispute Mediation Committee under the Small and Medium Business Administration or the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy.

• 한국신재생에너지학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2007.11a
• /
• pp.525-528
• /
• 2007

Geothermal Energy is related part of important the technology, and getting Patent statistics and analysis are targeted to Koran, Japan and America. Accoding to patent statistics, checking the analysis, developing speed of technology in korean and technology level and compared with America between Japan of technology. In this paper, Give help to national level can be achieved by reinforcing companies R&D, putting more concern and effort on getting straegical patents, activation of jog invention, expanding the quality Intellectual property(IP) & licensing Personnel, building a system responsive to international patent dispute. and national level can be archived by encouraging &supporting R&D of core technology, overseas applications of IP rights

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.153-175
• /
• 2013

The issue of patent validity becomes a subject of dispute under the FTA and there is a definite difference of opinion between China, Japan, and Korea. In other words, the validity of a judgment on the patent was exclusively under the jurisdiction of the administrative agency at a particular patent office. Thus, the issue arises where there is a potential judgment on patent validity. In this case, the Supreme Court rather than the patent office can offer a judgment from a judicial institution and can make a judgment in the case of a medication. In China, however, the lowest possibility of judgment on patent validity is predicted to occur in judicial institutions. Such a judgment is recognized as the Grand Bench Decision in Korea, and the court can judge the patent validation rather than the patent office. That is just the case in the Kilby case-it is invalid for reasons obvious in Japan. Therefore, there is a substantial difference between the three countries. Especially in Japan, where after the Kilby case, they revised the patent law in 2004 to introduce Article 104-3, placing the judgment of patent validity in the court, even if the "Apparentness"is not requisite. Per this law, infringers can argue for patent invalidity not only the judgment of the patent invalidation but also the infringement lawsuit. From the point of view of Japan, Korea became the judgment of trademark validation by extension and obvious cases can become directly to judge through the Supreme Court about the right that needs to examinations and registrations. In terms of the mediation, it also provides a clue about the judgment of intellectual property validation and expands the scope of the mediation in the future. From now on, in order to have active mediation procedures in the three countries, China, Japan, and Korea would need to unify regulations and application scopes for mediation in the FTA negotiation and to look forward to achieve a vigorous mediation approach.