• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.67-98
• /
• 2009

Recently there are many cases on the intellectual property dispute. Among them some cases are solved through mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration hold some advantage over court proceeding for intellectual property dispute. However the traditional litigation system has material limitation to settle down international intellectual property dispute. Without arbitration, litigation in court would be the only choice in case of no consensual settlement between the disputing parties. However, once being aware of the usefulness of the arbitration, people in international business widely realize that arbitration is generally preferred to litigation. Mediation is a method of settling dispute outside of court setting and many mediation committee are established since 1986 in Korea. Arbitrability has been a crucial issue in the intellectual property dispute. In most developed countries including the U.S.A. and Switzerland, arbitrability in the intellectual property dispute has been changed in recent years by law. Now in resolving the dispute with international intellectual property is needed for legal research, experience, working practices and knowledge of the intellectual property industry and so on.

• 한국기록관리학회지
• /
• 제16권4호
• /
• pp.7-30
• /
• 2016

국내외에서 특허나 제조물책임과 관련하여 그 어느 때보다 각종 소송에 노출되어 있는 기업들은 전자증거개시에 효과적으로 대처할 준비를 해야 한다. 이 연구는 기업 소송 사례를 통해 증거개시 과정에서 드러난 위험성을 기록정보관리 측면에서 분석하고, 이를 토대로 기업의 기록정보관리 방향을 제안하기 위한 것이다. 판례조사를 통해 삼성전자, 코오롱 등 국내 기업들이 전자증거개시 과정에서 '방어가능한 처분'에 실패한 요인을 분석하였고, 이러한 요인을 고려하여 소유 점유 관리하고 있는 전자정보의 파악과 통제, 신의성실에 입각한 처분중지 보장, 합리적 기록보유정책의 수립과 이행이라는 세 영역별로 정책방향을 제시하였다.