• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.49-72
• /
• 2015

The patent war between Apple and Samsung which started in the year of 2011 presents us a good example of a multifaceted technological strategies, frequently found in high-tech industries. The patent litigation represents a competitive structure, while the patent citation of counterpart's technology demonstrates the underlying cooperative relationship between two leading firms in smart-phone industry. However, the previous studies have mostly concentrated on one aspect in inter-firm relationship, providing only a partial aspect of technological management issues often faced by high-tech companies today. We also have a limited understanding on the technological trajectory or how the core technology evolve over time in high-tech industry where technological knowledge is the main source of competitive advantage. To overcome the drawbacks in the previous studies, we examine the coopetitive nature of inter-organizational relationship with simultaneous perspectives of competition and cooperation in smart-phone industry. To this end, this study analyzes patent-litigation for revealing the competitive nature and patent-citation network for the cooperative nature by utilizing patent citation data. By doing so, we identify the specific patterns of technological knowledge flows and the direction of technological strategy and the relevant policy under the circumstance of coopetition ecosystem.

• 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 Technology Innovation
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.57-91
• /
• 2012

This paper investigates determinants of litigation success in the two distinctive types of patent litigations, ex-parte and inter-parte cases, which are brought in the process where a filed application becomes a valid patent right. We regress winning rates of patent applicants on the characteristics of firms, trials, patent lawyer, and patent itself, using a probit model with sample selections. The paper finds that the relative suit rate of a firm, time to be sued, changes of patent agents by applicants, and multiple agents among explanatory variables affect ex-parte reexamination and in-parte post-grant patent trials differently in the point of average marginal effects. These variables lower the probability of applicant's victory in the ex-parte cases, while they raise the probability in the inter-parte trials. However, the experience that agents represent applicants is a winning rate-increasing factor both in inter-parte and ex-parte reexamination, unexpectedly. This result cannot be applied to the entire domain of the variable, since sample selection effects are reflected in the result. The number of claim increases the winning probability of the applicant in the both types of patent litigations. This study has some limitations because it ignores the information on the legal person to which a patent agent belongs, and confined agent's experience to patent filing. We leave it future studies to investigate the effects of lawsuit experience of patent agent, and those of characteristics of the law firm to which individual patent lawyer is affiliated.

• 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.

• Proceedings of the Korea Technology Innovation Society Conference
• /
• 2014.10a
• /
• pp.669-685
• /
• 2014

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.135-159
• /
• 2012

To the analysis and discussion whether to conceptualization between the basis and LCM(Life cycle management) of patentability decisions and evergreening through research on patent application strategies and litigation cases. The Stakeholders have said that the LCM and evergreening strategies are an innovative effort to develop new pharmaceuticals, while others say that it is an effort to block generic pharmaceuticals from entering the market and permanently dominate the market by generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers or health economic perspectives. To achieve the goal of research, to discuss for conceptualization LCM and Evergreening strategies through patent application strategies for 14 pharmaceuticals for APIs and case studies for litigations. As a results, the LCM is getting patent rights for the results of research at the initial R&D stage and as such this shall be regarded as part of an effort for technology innovation. However, Evergreening is granting patent rights for the results by making high permission barrier to prevent the market entry of generic pharmaceuticals in the late development period during the pharmaceuticals development process or after their launch. This may lead to the problem of getting weak in health economic aspects and consumer welfare aspects by lowering the market accessibility of cheap generic pharmaceuticals.

• Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.190-206
• /
• 2018

This article focuses on the legal systems and practice of intellectual property protection in Japan and China, including the relating civil litigation and administrative litigation procedures. The challenge of balancing the relationship between an invalidation trial and an invalid defense during the process of civil patent infringement litigation is a common issue to be solved in both Japan and China. In addition, it is quite usual that the IP products are being imported and exported across the borders due to the expansion of international trade. Accordingly, one of the most symbolic and difficult issues is how to balance the development of international trade and IP protection in each country. In other words, there is a practical issue regarding whether a parallel import of patented products is acceptable to a country or not. The key to determining this issue depends on the judgment of international exhaustion.

• The Journal of Information Systems
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.167-187
• /
• 2018

Purpose The purpose of this study is to confirm the factors for explaining the consumer behavior when occur patent litigation and technology infringement of each conditions which are brand reputation gap, technology importance and technology leakage attribution based on the Attribution Theory. Design/methodology/approach This study made a design of the research model by 2x2x2 factorial design deducted and performed 3-way ANOVA then analyzed 2-way AVOVA with brand reputation gap as center from technology importance and technology leakage attribution on the basis of the Attribution Theory. Findings According to the empirical analysis result, this study confirmed that consumer attitude has no difference regardless of technology leakage attribution when top-dog vs. under-dog situation and top-dog vs. top-dog situation. Also, this study confirmed that when under-dog infringe important technology, consumer show more positive attitude than the other. On the other hand, top-dog infringe important technology, consumer show more negative attitude than the other.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.303-343
• /
• 2018

In 2013 a new era for EU patent law system was launched. The creation of the EU patent with unitary effect and the establishment of the Unified Patent Court established a new legal framework on substantive patent protection and patent litigation in Europe. This year the EU Patent Package would become a reality. It includes a regulation on a unitary patent, a regulation on the translation regime and an international Agreement on the Unitary Patent Court. In contrast to the classical European patent, the post-grant life of unitary patent will be governed by the newly created unified patent court and it will have unitary effect. In this article, I highlight the effect of the unitary patent and the jurisdiction of the unified patent court over unitary patents (and 'traditional' patents granted under the EPC that are not opted-out) for actions in relation to patent infringement or to revocation of a European patent and to licences of right. This article explores on the one hand the relation between national patent, the classical European patent and EU patent with unitary effect and on the other hand the relation of unified patent court to the Brussels $I^{bis}$ Regulation. Particular attention is paid to the institutional changes created by the unitary patent package abd the new supplementary forum that enables the UPC to hear disputes involving defendants from third States that relate to an infringement of a European patent and give rise to damage inside as well as outside the Union. Furthermore on the perspective North-east Asia this essay examines the lessons from the experiences of EU patent package.

• 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.