• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.177-219
• /
• 2016

A commercial advertisement is not only a way of competition but also a medium of communication. Thus, it is under the constitutional protection of the freedom of business (article 15 of the Constitution) as well as the freedom of press [article 21 (1) of the Constitution]. In terms of the freedom of business or competition, it should be noted that an unfair advertising (false or misleading advertisement) can be regulated as an unfair competition, while any restraint on advertising other than unfair one might be doubted as an unjustifiable restraint of trade. In terms of the freedom of press or communication, it is important that article 21 (2) of the Constitution forbids any kind of (prior) censorship, and the Constitutional Court applies this restriction even to commercial advertising. In this article, the applicability of these schemes to advertising of the so-called learned professions, especially physician, are to be examined, and some proposals for the reformation of the current regulatory regime are to be made. Main arguments of this article can be summarized as follows: First, the current regime which requires advance review of physician advertising as prescribed in article 56 (2) no. 9 of Medical Act should be reformed. It does not mean that the current interpretation of article 21 of the Constitution is agreeable. Though a commercial advertising is a way of communication and can be protected by article 21 (1) of the Constitution, it should not be under the prohibition of censorship prescribed by article 21 (2) of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court adopts the opposite view, however. It is doubtful that physician advertising needs some prior restraint, also. Of course, there exists severe informational asymmetry between physicians and patients and medical treatment might harm the life and health of patients irrevocably, so that medical treatment can be discerned from other services. It is civil and criminal liability for medical malpractice and duty to inform and not regulation on physician advertising, to address these differences or problems. Advance review should be abandoned and repelled, or substituted by more unproblematic way of regulation such as an accreditation of reviewed advertising or a self-regulation preformed by physician association independently from the Ministry of Health and Welfare or any other governmental agencies. Second, the substantive criteria for unfair physician advertising also should correspond that of unfair advertising in general. Some might argue that a learned profession, especially medical practice, is totally different from other businesses. It is performed under the professional ethics and should not persue commercial interest; medical practice in Korea is governed by the National Health Insurance system, the stability of which might be endangered when commercial competition in medical practice be allowed. Medical Act as well as the condition of medical practice market do not exclude competition between physicians. The fact is quite the opposite. Physicians are competing even though under the professional ethics and obligations and all the restrictions provided by the National Health Insurance system. In this situation, regulation on physician advertising might constitute unjustifiable restraint of competition, especially a kind of entry barrier for 'new physicians.'

• 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.