• 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.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.

• 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.

• 기술혁신학회지
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.265-299
• /
• 2018

특허 소송은 혁신 혹은 지적 재산권의 보호 수단으로서 알려져 있다. 그러나 특허 시장이 증대됨에 따라 경쟁사의 진입을 방해하기 위한 전략적 수단으로 특허 소송의 활용 범위가 증대되었다. 특허 소송에 연루될 가능성은 기업이 가지고 있는 특허의 양질이 증대할수록 높아진다고 밝혀져 왔다. 그러므로 혁신을 추구하는 기업의 입장에서는 특허 소송에 연루될 가능성을 최대한 낮출 수 있는 방안이 필요하다. 이에 본 연구는 인쇄 전자 산업 내 기업의 과거 제휴 활동이 특허품질과 특허 소송의 관계에 미칠 수 있는 영향력에 대해 분석하였다. 특허 품질과 특허 소송의 관계에 대한 기존 연구결과를 재 입증함과 더불어 피고인 관점의 특허 소송에 대한 연구를 진행하여 기업의 제휴 활동이 특허 소송을 낮춘다는 결과를 도출하였다. 예컨대, 평균치의 특허를 지닌 기업에 대해 과거 제휴 활동의 유무가 연간 특허 소송률을 약 33% 낮추는 것을 실증적으로 입증하였다. 본 연구가 특허 소송과 전략적 제휴에 관한 기존 문헌에 기여하는 바는 다음과 같다. 기업의 과거 전략적 제휴가 평판으로서의 역할을 하여 특허 소송을 감소시킴을 확인함으로써 기존 전략적 제휴 관련 문헌에 기여한다. 또한, 특허 품질이 특허 소송에 미치는 영향력에 대한 새로운 조절 변수를 밝혀냄으로써 기존 특허 소송 관련 문헌에 기여한다. 더불어, 본 연구는 특허 소송을 피고인 관점에서 분석한 최초의 연구라는 점에서 매우 의미가 있다.

• 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.

• 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.

• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• 제42권2호
• /
• 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.

• 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.

• 한국자동차공학회논문집
• /
• 제23권3호
• /
• pp.315-325
• /
• 2015

Smart Car market has been experiencing continuous growth to drive leading companies in automotive and IT industries to focus on advancing related technologies. As the IT technologies fuse into automotive technologies, the patent litigation has been showing changes. One of the prominent changes in patent litigation pattern of Smart Car field is the increased activities of the Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), whose main field has been the IT area. However, the automotive companies have been mainly focusing on preventing patent disputes against competitors through trend analysis, which caused them to become relatively vulnerable to the attacks from NPEs. In this study, we developed a methodology for monitoring and analyzing the activities of NPEs using network analysis tools to suggest effective strategies for manufacturing companies to fortify their ability to respond against unanticipated attacks. Our methodology, which is developed for the Smart Car field, can also be useful for other fields such as IT and electronics.

• Asia Marketing Journal
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• 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.