特許制度上의 新規性 判斷에 관한 硏究 : 國際 條約을 중심으로

이선택 충남대학교 대학원 2002 국내석사

As the volume of trading in the international scale is growing and a world communications and industries are developing, the drastic change in the world economy have been undertaken-namely, internationalization of the economy. Increasingly rapid development of industries now enables the world economy to become one global market. Accordingly, a need to establish norms for international protection of patent rights has been increased. Patent is available at anyplace and spreads abroad. So patent has basically international characteristics. The treaties for regulation of international characteristics are Paris Convention for the Protection of industrial Property in 1882, Patent Cooperation Treaty and Patent Law Treaty. And now WIPO has several conferences for Substantive Patent Law Treaty. Because novelty has a process and substance for patent and is ground for decision of patentablity, the international treaties and conferences for patent harmonization have been started from regulating of novelty. The object of this study is for the observation of national novelty and to coping with changing international tendency. A claimed invention shall be new. It shall be considered new if it does not form part of the prior art. For the determination of lack of novelty, items of prior art may only be taken into account individually and may not be combined, and must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use claimed invention. For the determination of novelty, items of prior art which would have been known to a person skilled in art, and which contribute to determining whether the promary item of prior art was enabling, are incorporated by explicit reference in the primary item of prior art, explain the meaning of terms used in the primary item of prior art, show that a characteristic not disclosed in the primary item of priro art is inherent and shall be taken into account together with the promary item of prior art. In my opinion, to qualify as prior art, information may be made available to the public in written form, by oral communication, by display, through use or in any other form. And Information shall be deemed to be made available to the public, if there is a possibility that it could be accessed by the public. For the purposes of novelty, public constitutes any person, who not be a person skilled in the art, and who is not bound by any restrictions regarding the ues or dissemination of the information. Where information is made available to the public in non-written form, a Contracting party may require, for the information to quality as prior art, corroborative evifence in order to establish the timing and the contents of the disclosure. I hope that this study will be used in revision ay patent law and will be propesed of changing direction of novelty regulation. Revision of Korean Patent Act will follow in accordance with the adoption of PLT and SPLT. Deep consideration and intensive study on th Treaties are very essential for the future developments regarding the ratification of the treaty and revision of Korean Patent Act.

韓·中·日 特許制度 統一化 方案에 관한 硏究

권순학 연세대학교 법무대학원 2003 국내석사

특허권은 유형물이 아닌 발명이라는 무형물에 대한 지배권이어서 그 객체의 존재가 특정한 장소의 지배를 받기 보다는 오히려 장소를 달리하여 국제적으로도 이용 가능하고 또한 모방과 침해의 위험이 손쉽게 따를 수도 있는 속성의 재화인 바, 오늘날 발명의 국제적 보호의 필요성은 절실하다. 그럼에도 불구하고 각국의 특허제도는 국가 주권사상에 기초하여 원칙적으로는 자국의 산업보호에 역점을 두는 속지주의 원리를 확립하여 이를 고수하고 있어 결과적으로는 국제간 경제교류와 상품의 원할한 유통에 장애요인이 되고 있다. 따라서 이러한 문제들을 해결하므로서 발명의 국제적 보호에 원활을 기하고자 세계적 관심은 특허제도의 속지성을 완화하고 국제적으로 보호할 수 있는 방향으로 접근하는 경향이 있다. 산업재산권 보호를 위한 지역 협의체는 이와 같은 한계를 극복하고 하나의 출원으로 동일한 특허를 여러국가에서 보호해줌으로서 출원인의 편의를 도모하고 지역의 산업발전을 도모하고자 한 것이다. 국제적으로 단일화된 특허제도 통일화의 논의로 산업재산권 보호를 위한 지역협의체는 그 의미가 점차 축소될 수도 있을 것으로 생각될 수 있으나, 현실적으로는 특허제도 자체가 지역적, 경제적 기반에 바탕을 두고 있어 각국의 이해관계를 조율하기 쉽다는 점에서 지역 협의체는 점차적으로 확대되고 있는 추세이다. 이에 지리적 인접성, 문화적 유사성 등의 측면에서 상호간에 경제적 협력에 중요한 파트너로 자리한 한·중·일 3국의 특허제도 통일화에 대한 필요성이 제기되었으며, 수차에 걸친 협의를 통하여 일부는 그 성과를 거두고 있다. 한·중·일 3국이 특허제도의 통일화를 위해서는 3국의 서로 다른 언어와 기술용어의 차이에서 야기되는 선행기술 검토의 문제, 특허요건에 대한 단일의 심사기준 마련, 특허권 부여후에 야기되는 분쟁의 해결을 위한 조정기구의 설립 등이 선결되어야 할 것이다. 한편 한·중·일 3국은 특허제도의 통일화를 기반으로 국제사회에서의 지식재산권 보호를 위한 제도적 안전장치를 지속적으로 마련하는 것은 물론 지식재산권 침해가 다발하고 있는 개도국의 지식재산권제도 현대화 사업에서도 주도적 역할을 수행하며, 미국, 유럽이 중심이 된 지식재산권보호에 대한 국제논의에서도 능동적으로 대응할 수 있을 것이다. A patent right is one to dominate intangible objects such as invention, so its existence is not so much restricted under specific place as available internationally verying its place. And it is also vulneralbe to imitation and risk of infringement. Therefore it is urgent to preserve the right internationally. Nevertheless, the patent system of most nations are based on National Sovereignty, and all nations sting to the territorial principle which lays stress on protection of their industries. As a result it is hindering the smooth circulation of goods and economic cooperation among nations. Therefore the world is getting interested in alleviating the territorial principle of patent system and protecting it internationally in order to enhance the international protection of invention by solving these problems. The regional cooperative body for the protection of industrial property is intended to overcome these limits and to accomodate applicants and seek regional industrial development by protecting the patent in most nations only as one application. We may think that the regional cooperative body will be underestimated in its meaning, but it is actually expanding its territory in meaning that the patent system is based on regional economy and it is easy to adjust each nation interests. Consequently these facts are coming up with the necessity of unifying the patent systems among Korea, Japan and China which are important partners one another in economic cooperation, which has been partly accomplished through several negotiations. There are three prerequisites for the unification of the patent systems among the three nations which are problems of examining precedent technologies caused by different languages and terminology, of preparing the same standard of examining patent requisites and of organizing the coordination body to sovle the disputes triggered after granting patent-rights. Meanwhile, the three nations Korea, Japan and China have to constantly manage the institutional safety device for intellectual property right in international society. In addition, they ought to play major roles in modernizing the intellectual property right system of developing countries where the infringement of intellectual property right is occurring a lot, and they also have to positively cope with the international discussion for intellectual property right initiated by the U.S. and Europe.

美國內 特許紛爭에 關한 硏究 : 韓國企業들과 關聯된 事例들을 中心으로

정병일 延世大學校 管理科學大學院 2001 국내석사

特許權은 先進技術이나 具體化된 思想의 公開를 條件으로 發明者나 出願人이 一定期間 누릴 수 있는 特權이다. 지적재산권으로 총칭되는 무형의 재산권은 20세기 산업의 발달과 더불어 폭발적으로 늘어났고, 한나라의 기술수준을 평가하는 기준이 되기도 한다. 美國이 세계 초강국으로 누리는 특권이 산업혁명이후 1920년대의 대공황을 겪으면서 그 어려움을 산업화로 이겨내고, 자유경쟁에 의한 자본주의 국가의 체제아래 무한정의 인간의 사고능력을 인정하게 된 것에 기초하는 이상, 미국에서의 시장선점을 위한 세계 여러나라 기업들의 노력은 당연한 시장생존원리이며, 미국에 진출하는 한국의 기업들도 예외는 아니다. 우리나라가 비록 世界 10位圈內의 知的財産權 出願國 이긴 해도, 지적재산권을 대변하는 특허제품이나 기술만을 보더라도 미국시장으로 進出하는 기업들의 어려움이 있기는 다른 國家들이나 開發途上國들과 크게 다르지 않다. 그러나, 이러한 어려움은 해당 기술수준이 낮아서 발생할 수도 있겠지만, 그보다는 오히려, 美國의 자국기업보호를 위한 타국기업들과의 관계 규정을 모르거나, 特許法制度의 無知에 의하여 知的財産權 侵害紛爭이 발생되는 경우가 적지 않다. 따라서, 美國 知的財産權 制度를 정확히 이해하고, 미국에서의 특허분쟁사례를 연구 분석하여 반복적인 분쟁의 소지를 미연에 방지하는 것이 미국에 진출하려는 기업들이 선행 해야할 준비과제이다. 美國의 法制度가 대륙의 그것과는 달리 判例法으로 운영되므로, 특허분쟁에 관한연구 또한 판례를 연구하고 분석하는 일이 된다. 사례 분석을 위하여 美國의 司法制度와 特許制度의 개략적인 구조와 적용의 상식이 있어야 하므로 이들의 개요를 文頭에 두었다. 특허분쟁이 발생하는 경우, 미국 법제도의 특성상, 各州 法院과 聯邦法院 또는 國際貿易委員會(ITC)에서 관할하게 되므로 이들 관할기관의 구분과 역할 및 그 권한에 대해 약술하였다. 관할기관이 정해지면, 특허분쟁은 특허권이 전제되는 것이므로, 먼저 特許廳에서 행한 특허권의 정당성 여부를 가려야 한다. 이를 위해 特許要件에 맞도록 특허가 허여 되었는지 외 여부를 파악하는 것이 선행되어야 한다. 特許要件은 미국특허법 제2편 제10장의 발명특허요건에 명시되어 있는 바와 같이, 특히 有用性과 新規性 및 自明性의 3요소를 기본으로 하여 특허성을 결정하게 되므로 이들의 기준과 활용을 살펴보았다. 特許侵害를 다름에 있어서는 理論的 類型을 直接侵害와 間接侵害 및 誘導侵害로 분류하고, 침해 판단방법으로 가장 기본적인 특허청구범위해석을 선두로 均等範圍까지 살펴보았다. 이러한 이론적·실제적 배경을 바탕으로 궁극적인 특허침해 사례들을 발췌한바, 그 기간은 1970년대부터 2000년까지의 한국기업과 직·간접으로 관련된 미국내에서의 특허분쟁을 그 대상으로 하고, 대상사례를 관할기관별로 크게 국제무역위원회에서 다룬 사례들과 소송법원에서 다룬 사례들로 구별된바, 국제무역위원회에서 다룬 한국기업관련 특허침해사례들은 특허권의 존부, 유도침해와 직접침해, 특허청구범위 해석등으로 구분되었으며, 초심에 관한 중간재심이나 항고까지 이어진 사례들로 분류되었다. 또한, 특허침해소송에서는 사례들의 요지와 진행과정 그리고 그 결과를 분석하여 본 결과 直接侵害에 대한 사례들과, 변호사의 의무위반, 특허성 여부, 특허청구범위해석, 재판관할권 관한 사례들로 분류할 수 있었으며, 판례들의 분석을 통해 그 판례가 갖는 법적 의의를 파악하고, 궁극적인 침해방지를 위한 계획을 세우도록 시사점을 導出하는 것으로 연구의 목적을 달성할 수 있었다. 이러한 일련의 과정들은 대한민국 특허법과 미국특허법과의 차이를 알므로서 더욱 공고해질 수 있으므로 두 나라의 특허법도 比較하였다. The purpose of this dissertation is the analysis of the patent infringement cases in which at least a party is Korean Company making, using, or selling without authority patented inventions in America. While the patent system in America operates under federal rules, the jurisdiction of the law suits for patent infringements is courts and International Trade Committee(ITC). To obtain the purpose of the dissertation the cases are divided into two groups classified infringement types of the ITC action and the civil action. First group cases under the ITC action are composed of patentability, direct infringement, actively induced infringement and contributory infringement including appeal trials. Second group is cases treated under federal courts for remedy of infringement of patent. Each cases are classified into small groups; the violation of attorney duty, direct infringement, patentability and nullity, the range of claims in specifications and jurisdiction. Cases are summarized individually into the cause of patent infringement, the processing and the effect. From the summarized cases the meaning and the suggestion of the cases are derived for their analysis. The purpose of the analysis of the summarized cases is to earn a precept why happened the dispute, how was the processing, what was the result, who won. By the analysis of the cases classifically each groups perform their duties as a milestone in the patent dispute. The analyzed cases groups light aliens a solution to a problem by showing the classification of patent disputes, another way to avert the disputes and a way of cope effectively with a dispute situation.

知識基盤經濟時代의 産業財産權制度의 發展方向 연구 : 特許制度를 중심으로

이익희 忠南大學校 特許法務大學院 2003 국내석사

The era of the knowledge-based economy is vastly different from bygone eras. Since knowledge has become a major means of production, in the 21st century the owners of intellectual property (IP) can gain added value regardless of place and time. Furthermore, inefficiencies in trade are being overcome and the competition in various fields is opened up because physical obstacles have disappeared. All these changes form a new order for economic activities. Human resources are the most important capital for the creation and dissemination of knowledge, which is the driving force of the new era. The future therefore depends on training personnel to improving IP, supplementing relevant laws and extending new IPs for wealth creation and international competitiveness. The core of IP is science and technology, and the basic system for developing of science and technology is the system of intellectual property rights (IPRs). Every country has affirmed the economic efficiency of IP and implemented a strategic pro-patent policy of industrial development based on IPRs. This thesis looks at the meaning, current status and legal principles of IPRs. Focusing on the patent system, it analyzes current IPR issues and discerns the desirable direction for the knowledge-based era. Internationally, the IPR system is likely to become easier, cheaper and more convenient. For patents, the procedure of the Patent Law Treaty are ready to be enforced. The contents of the treaty are now being actively discussed and the range of IPRs is being continuously widened. Despite its history, the Republic of Korea has become a major patent-filing country due to a better understanding of the importance of IPRs. However, most IP applications are limited to secondary technologies, which have a lower economic value than the original technologies from which they are derived. The IPR system should be able to cope with global changes and trends and have a strategic view that gives priority to national interests. Analysis and reflection should be given to the current system, especially in the relation to the shift from conservative protection to constructive protection, the shift from imitation to creation, and an appropriate system of reformation. It is time to consider separating the utility model system from the patent system. The efficiency of the utility model system should be surveyed to determine if the additional costs have any benefits. The problems of quick-registration System for utility models also need to be solved. Without exaggeration, the development of IPRs depends on two things: how to relieve IPR holders from acts of infringement and how to protect IPRs. Furthermore, the role of the Patent Court needs to be strengthened so that infringement suits can be heard in the Patent Court and patent attorneys can participate in the proceedings. For more specialized and efficient IP management, as well as a uniform and coherent IP policy, a single organization should be responsible for administering all IP-related business. The Korean Intellectual Property Office should be strengthened in its capacity. Since management of the IP system influences the future, the IP system, along with its cause and effect, should continue to be studied and improved.

植物特許制度의 改善方案 硏究

이호조 忠南大學校 特許法務大學院 2004 국내석사

In the Korean patent law, Article 31 is the only provision in the field of plant patent. This provision refers that a person who invents a variety of plants that reproduces itself asexually may obtain a plant patent. The meaning of this provision has been controversial continuously. The most important thing among the controversies is whether the provision, Article 31, is dependent or independent form other provisions. When the first action in lawmaking for protecting plant varieties was taken place in 1946, the plant patent system in the US code 35 was almost perfectly introduced into the Korean patent law as it was. In US code 35, plant patent is said as a kind of patent for protecting only plant varieties. However, all the provisions introduced from US code 35 in 1946 were deleted in 1961 except for the provision describing the subject of protection. The remained provision is same to the present Article 31 with the exception of the provisory clause. There are difficulties in finding out the reason why the only provision, Article 31, was remained. In the first place, we can merely infer the meaning of this provision by making an observation in the worldwide trends in the protection system for plant varieties at that time. After the rediscovery for Mendel's law at 1900, the plant breeding was started in a scientific way and thereby the new problems in protecting the new varieties bred by scientific methods such as crossing, selection was followed. However, the new plant varieties were not protected by patent law because they were not satisfactory to the requirements in description, repeatability, or inventive step as an invention. Because of these reasons, many countries introduced a new suigeneris system that is different form the general patent. Plant Patent Act was established in USA at 1930 and UPOV convention, a model for plant varieties' protection law, was concluded by European countries at 1961. The protection for plant varieties by the general patent was started in the 1980s since when biotechnology has become a tool in plant breeding. Plant improved by genetic engineering such as gene recombination, cell fusion and transformation was satisfactory to the said requirements. Considering the history of plant protection, the provision restricting the subject in the plant patent law (1961) was not necessary since, in that law, no plant varieties was able to be a protectable subject meeting the requirements of the general patent at that time. Therefore, the existing Article 31 can be concluded to be nothing but a provision to declare the fact that the new varieties can be protected. As the result, we can either introduce either the plant patent system with complementation the Article 31 or delete the article 31. But if the plant patent system is introduced, there will be two protection systems for asexually reproducing plant varieties, the plant patent act and plant varieties protection law. Considering the problem of double protection system, it would be desirable to deleting the existing Article 31. Consequently, plant inventions by new biotechnology can be applied to the general patent for the protection and plant varieties by the conventional breeding method can be legitimate to the plant variety protection system.

特許審判制度에 관한 硏究

이동찬 全北大學校 1987 국내석사

This thesis is: a research regarding the Patent Trial Institution in KOREA. The patent is an institution of giving exclusive jurisdiction to the inventor, and it contributes to industrial development of a nation by opening to the public of inventor's invention. Yet the origin of the patent institution is uncertain. These days interests in the patent institution are rapidly increasing in KOREA as well as in foreign nations. The discussions about the patent Trial Institution, along with those about several other patent institutions, the brisk lately. To find measures to improve the KOREAN Patent Trial Institution, those of the United kingdom, the U. S. A. West Germany, Japan and the European Patent Office were studied and classified into three types: Special Court Type, General Court Type and Patent Office Trial Board type. The special court type found in the United Kingdom, the U. S. A. and West Germany is the most ideal and has the highest, independency and speciality of patent trial institution. The general court type operating in Japan guarantees the highest independency. The patent office trial board type, which has a low independency yet, a high speciality, is found in the European patent office as well as in the KOREAN Patent Office. Before 1977 in the United Kingdom, the patent trial institution in Patent Law developed differently from that of the U. S. A. and West Germany. The United Kingdom had dealt with patent trials in the general courts, while west Germany and the U. S. A. through the trial board of patent office or special court. However, the Patent Court was established in 1977 and dealt, with the appeals of Comptroller's rejection and infringement cases. Therefore it, guaranteed both independency and speciality. In the U. S. A. the newly established Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit (C. A. F. C) now has jurisdiction over the appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark office and over the appeal from the district court patent application rejection cases. So as to solve the problem of speciality deficiency of the general court and of inconsistent decisions among courts. Especially the C. A. F. C. has exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal from the district court in infringement cases. Geographically distributed Federal Circuit Courts, had taken charge of infringement cases before the establishment of the C. A. F. C. in October, 1982; but it had been criticized as co-contradictory and time consuming for its respective contrary decision. Since the establishment, the C. A. F. C. has had exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal of infringement cases and consistent rapid decisions are expected. The judges of the C. A. F. C. Consisting of 12 members are appointed under the agreement of the Senate. If there is a dissatisfaction about the C. A. F. C. 's decision, an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court. In West Germany, the appellate board of trial in the patent office had taken charge of the appeals until the Federal Patent Court was established in 1961. The judges of the patent court, are appointed for life, thus they are independent of political circumstances. They are recruited from the patent office; and the forum consists of the technical and legal members according to the cases. Thus the speciality of the patent trial is guaranteed. In Japan, appeals over the decision of the trial board of the patent office were dealt with by Tokyo High Court, therefore it is classified as a "general court" type. Before 1948, Japan was of the patent office trial board type. Appeals against examiner’s rejection were dealt with in the appellate board of trial which is a division of the patent office. After World war, in case of dissatisfaction over the decision of the appellate board of trial, it is appealed to Tokyo High Court which is general court. Therefore, the patent trials were judged four times at that time. After 1959, Japan adopted the perfect general court type which enabled the direct appeal to Tokyo High Court in case of dissatisfaction against the decision of the trial board of the patent office. However, its adoption of the general court type guaranteed independency, but resulted in a low speciality. The European patent office is the product, of regional cooperation in patents of the Western European Countries, and of the advances in legal understanding of patent system. And it, belongs to "patent office trial board" type into which the Korean institution is also classified. The Patent Trial Organization of EPO consists of the Board of Appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The Board of Appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal are similar to the special court of West Germany in their constitutions; they consist of the number of the legal and technical members according to the cases. And the European Patent Convention E. P. C. has provisions regarding the independency of judges to gurantee the independency of patent trials. The Patent Trial Institution in KOREA belongs to "patent office trial board" type. It is easy to maintain the speciality but difficult to guarantee perfect independency because the patent office, a division of the Executive, deals with the cases. Therefore, there is another suggestion that the function of the appellate board of trial be transferred to the Seoul High Court just as in Japan. The current, problems and improvements of the KOREAN Patent Trial Institution are as follows; * The Problems 1) Since the patent appeals are dealt with by the division of patent, office, Speciality is guaranteed but independency is difficult to be guaranteed. 2) Institutionally, it, is difficult for the patent office judges to judge patent cases independently. 3) In the Supreme Court, several co-contradict, inconsiste tent decisions are discovered in the cases regarding patent trials. * The improvements 1) Special court, which guarantees both the speciality and independency of the patent trials should be established. 2) Qualifications of the patent office judges should be enforced and the status should be guaranteed so as to judge patent cases independently. 3) Co-contradict, decisions of the Supreme Court should be arbitrated and the consistency of decisions on patent trials should be established.

우리나라 特許審判制度의 發展方案에 관한 硏究

김정자 韓南大學校 行政政策大學院 2004 국내석사

경제전쟁시대에 있어 특허제도를 적정하고 원활하게 운영하는 것은 발명가나 기업 또는 국민 모두에게 이익을 주는 것이며, 이를 어떻게 원활하게 운영할 것인가는 국가정책의 최우선 순위에 두어야 한다. 특허심판제도 본래의 취지는 특허가 잘못 부여되거나 이유없이 특허부여가 거절되는 등 심사관의 처분에 하자가 있는 경우에 일반 공중 및 출원인의 권리·이익을 해칠 뿐만 아니라 국가 산업발달에의 기여라고 하는 특허제도의 목적에도 어긋나므로 이를 조정하자는 것이다. 산업재산권은 인간의 기술적 사상을 대상으로 하는 것으로서 그 권리의 대상 자체가 일반적인 소유권과 비교할 때 명확하지 않아 특허권자와 침해자 사이에 분쟁이 빈번하게 일어나고 특허심판의 청구도 계속 증가하고 있는 현상황하에서 특허심판제도가 지적재산권 관련분쟁을 적정·신속하게 해결하는 진정한 권익구제수단으로 기능할 수 있어야 한다. 우리나라의 사법제도에서 볼 때, 지난 1998년 3월에 획기적인 변화를 맞은 현행의 특허쟁송제도는 매우 특이한 제도임에는 틀림없다. 우리나라 최초로 특수한 분야의 전문법원으로서 고등법원급인 특허법원을 설립하여 이를 사실심의 제1심으로 하는 2심제의 심급구조를 취하고 있으며, 우리나라 특허분쟁에 있어 사실상 제1심의 역할을 수행하는 특허심판제도는 1998년 특허심판원 및 특허법원의 설치, 특허소송제도의 개혁과 공정하고 신속한 특허심판처리를 위한 특허심판원의 그간의 지속적인 제도개선 등의 노력으로 많은 발전이 있었다. 특허심판원이 개원 6주년이 지난 현시점에서 특허심판제도의 운영현황을 되돌아보고 현재 우리나라의 특허심판제도의 문제점과 당면과제의 검토 및 이의 바람직한 발전방안을 검토해 본다. 적정·공평·신속·경제라는 심판절차의 4대 이상은 그 자체에 어느 정도 제한적 요소를 포함하고 있을 뿐만 아니라 현실적으로 인적·물적 시설에 한계가 있어 4대 이상을 모두 달성한다는 것은 극히 힘든 일이다. 그러므로 현실적으로는 선택의 문제이며, 어느 부분을 중시하는냐를 선택하여야 할 것이고, 심판단계에서 적정을 크게 해치지 않는 한도에서 신속에 중점을 두는 것이 바람직 하다고 본다. 특허·실용신안의 심판처리기간 장기화는 매우 우려할 만한 사태라고 보이며 이를 해소하기 위해서 긴급한 것은 처리해야 할 심판사건수와 심판관 수가 적정한 비례를 유지하도록 심판인력을 확보하여 적어도 6월이내에 심판이 종결되도록 해야 할 것이다. 또한, 현행의 특허쟁송제도하에서 특허심판이 실질적으로는 특허법원의 제1심 재판을 대신하는 성격을 지니고 있음에도 불구하고, 전문성과 독립성을 갖추지 못하고 있으므로 특허심판이 이들 분쟁을 적정·공평·신속·경제적으로 해결하기 위해서는, 그의 전문성과 독립성의 확보는 더 이상 늦추어서는 안 될 중요한 발전과제임이 분명하다. 산업재산권을 중심으로 한 지적재산권은 국가발전을 좌우하는 가장 중요한 자원이며 이미 국제사회는 지적재산권협정(WTO·TRIPs 협정)을 타결·발효시킴으로서 지적재산권 우위의 국제경쟁질서를 형성해 나아가고 있다. 우리가 이러한 시대적 상황에 적절히 대응해 나가기 위해서는 우리 특허심판제도를 비롯한 지적재산권 관련 제도 및 법령을 끊임없이 보완·개선해 나갈수 있도록 노력해야 할 것이다. * 주요어 : 특허심판제도, 직권탐지주의, 처분권주의, 심결취소소송, 관할집중, 기술판사, 기술심리관, 구술심리, 특허법원

特許審判院의 組織과 運營의 效率化에 관한 硏究 : 特許審判制度와 特許審判院의 組織·運營을 中心으로

황순효 東國大學校 經營大學院 1998 국내석사

The purpose of this study is to analyze and to suggest for improvement with respect to the organization and management of the Industrial Property Tribunal ("IPT") as. a special administration body in resolving disputes involving industrial property rights. On March 1, 1998, the ongoing reforms in the patent trial system and the judicial system resulted in the establishment of the IPT which is under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of the Korean Industrial Property Office ("KIPO") and the Patent Court whose decisions subject to review by the Supreme Court, upon petition. For half a century since the foundation of the Republic of Korea, it has been the case that the original and the appellate trial were respectively adjudicated by the Ttial Board and the Appellate Trial Board ("ATB") of the KIPO where the decisions rendered by the ATB was reviewed by the Supreme Court. This system has been criticized as improper trial procedures and even debated as constitutional. Article 186 Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law, which prescribes the patent appeal system regarding the decision of the ATB of the KIPO, has been criticized that it violates the principles of the separation of powers and the rule of law prescribed under the Constitution, and that it further deprives the citizens of the right to a trial by a judge. For such reasons, in January and July of 1992, the Supreme Court and the Seoul High Court petitioned the Constitutional Court for its determination as to the constitutionality of the patent trial system. As a result, increased attention has been given on reforming the patent ttial system as well as the judicial system, and endless debates among the judicial branch, the legal profession, the KIPO and the patent related professionals have ensued in public forums, hearings, seminars, discussions, and the like. On July 8, 1994, the Congressional Bill Drafting Committee and Commerce, Industry & Resource Committee, the Supreme Court, and the KIPO reached a mutual agreement. On July 27, 1994, the Court Organization Law was revised in order to eliminate any unconstitutionality existing in the law. Thus, the Patent Court was established as an intermediate appellate court, and, accordingly, the Patent Law was revised and promulgated on January 5, 1995. The IPT was established as an independent judicial body under the Commisioner of the KIPO in order to increase the level of independence and specialty for patent trials. After the court and the KIPO took such measures mentioned above, the Constitutional Court decided that the above Patent Law Article 186 Paragraph 1 is not consistent with the Constitution. Therefore, the patent trial procedure - where the Trial Board adjudicated disputes as nisi prius, the ATB, as an intermediate appellate court, and the Supreme Court as the highest court for reviewing the case, adopted a reformed appeal system as of March 1, 1998. Under this new system, it is decided that the IPT of the KIPO to manage only at the trial level, the Patent Court at the intermediate appellate level and the Supreme Court at the final appellate level. The decision of the IPT cannot be appealed on the base of Administrative Trial Law since the appeal rests with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Patent Court. The principle of the preliminary trial decision is enforced regarding cancellation action of a patent trial decision, and the decision may be appealed in the Supreme Court. This system enables courts to thoroughly examine both the facts and the law, At the same time, in order to support a specialized examination at the Patent Court level, the KIPO is to dispatch technical assistants to the Patent Court who are designed to give advice on specialized technical fields such as mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, and electrical engineering. The administration matters regarding the patent trials were assigned to the Trial Board and the Appellate Trial Board of Patent Department of the Ministry of Commerce under the Patent Law enacted on October 15, 1946. The first dispute on intellectual property right filed in 1949 was involving two cases on designs, and this is regarded as the beginning of patent trial system in the Republic of Korea. Since then, for half a century until 1997, the record of 26,527 cases in the Trial Board, 47,347 cases in the Appellate Trial Board, and 4,134 cases in the Supreme Court shows the rapidly increasing number and importance of intellectual property rights necessarily accompanying the economic development and accelerated technological innovations. Patent trial is the dispute resolution procedures held by the trial examiner of the IPT to settle fast and reasonably the disputes regarding intellectual property rights such as patents, utility models, designs, and trademarks. A patent trial is a preliminary procedure, which requires certain level of technical expertise, and is preceded before the case is submitted for review to the Supreme Court. It is managed by the trial examiner who has experience and knowledge in both the civil procedures and the patent procedures. It is permitted by Article 107 Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. The IPT as a special administrative trial body should, in the future, professionally train the trial examiner, promote the trial confidence, and reduce the processing period, through appropriate organization and management, so that it may contribute in establishing an efficient trial system satisfying Korea's increasing industrial demand, and also offering people with qualified, professional technique and legal services. Since the IPT reauires substantial improvement regarding its organization and management in order to achieve these goals, it is the conclusion of this thesis that the following should be implemented. First, the new patent trial system should be designed and operated as an organization in which the Presidnet of the IPT as a chief of special administrative trial body should be independent from the Commissioner of the KIPO in order to enable him/her properly excercise his/her authority and responsibility. The patent trial system should be improved to meet the standard of the patent trial systems in the advanced nations. Second, the number of trial examiners should be increased, and more professional human resources should be available to ensure a fast, reasonable, and fair resolution of disputes regarding intellectual property rights. On the other hand, trial examiners must be given incentives through providing improved treatment, professionalization of the personnel management and the proper positioning and management of the human resources. Third, the duties and limitations for the President, Chief Examiner and Examiner-in-charge of the IPT stipulated in the Patent Laws and its enforcement regulations should be made more clear so to increase the efficiency of the trial operation process. Fourth, depending on the types and specialties of intellectual property rights such as the patent right, the utility model rights, the design right, and the trademark, the organization of designated and specialized trial department should be expanded and also should operate a designated and specialized committee composed of three or five persons, including the chief of department of trial, chief of sub-department and trial examiner Fifth, the trial examiner should keep comunicating with both parties or their representatives in order to accelerate the hearing process. Moreover, the trial examiner should utilize oral proceedings in order to make it easier to discover truthful facts in connection with the trial. The trial examiner should also introduce a concentrated hearing system under which the hearings are held for a designated period of time to accelerate the trial. Sixth, the expedition of trial system should be introduced to allow accelerate the examination in the disputes on intellectual property rights on which preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction or criminal procedure is pending. Seventh, in order to enable an efficient adminstration of trial, special organization should be established in the Patent Court and the Supreme Court. Finally, after studing patent trial system of major advanced foreign nations and comparing patent trial system with the specialized administrative trials of Republic of Korea, such as tax examination trials and maritime collision trials, a long term and short term strategy should be established.

특허신탁제도의 활용 촉진 방안에 관한 연구

황화순 부산대학교 대학원 2014 국내석사

국가 간 지식경쟁력이 더욱더 치열하게 전개되고 있는 가운데 우리나라는 전 세계 3위의 특허출원 건수를 보유하고 있는 세계적인 수준임에도 불구하고, 특허를 비롯한 지식재산권의 기술이전이나 사업화는 잘 되지 못하고 있다. 한국지식재산연구원의 “국가 지식재산 경쟁력 평가 연구” 보고서에 따르면 지식재산 분야 선진 10개국 중 우리나라는 인구수 대비 지식재산권 창출은 세계 1위를 차지했다. 반면 특허 1건당 생산액은 700만 달러로 최하위, 특허 1건당 부가가치 역시 300만 달러로 세계 꼴찌 수준인 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 보고서에 의하면 우리나라의 특허 건수는 매년 급증하고 있지만 실제로 기술 계약으로 이어지는 건수는 연평균 12.5%로 감소하고 있는 것으로 집계됐다. 아울러 특허등록 이후 기술이전 등 추가적인 사업연결이 되지 못한 휴먼특허 비율은 지난해 기준 기업이 43.5%, 대학과 공공연구소가 72.9%에 이르고 있는 것으로 조사되고 있어 문제의 심각성이 크다. 이러한 비효율성을 개선하고자 2009년 국가기술자원의 효율적인 활용 및 기술이전시장의 활성화를 위한 방안으로 특허신탁제도로 시행되고, 동 특허신탁제도의 활성화를 위해 2011년 7월 25일 신탁법이 전부 개정되었으며, 2012년 6월에는 동산 및 채권 등의 담보에 관한 법률 시행에 “지식재산권 담보에 관한 특례가” 규정되어 지식재산권(특허권, 실용신안권, 디자인권, 상표권, 저작권 등)을 자산으로 활용할 수 있게 하는 등, 제도가 정비되고 있으나 아직 제대로 활성화가 이루어지고 있지 않은 실정이다. 본 논문에서는 특허신탁제도를 이용하고 활성화하는 데 있어 제도의 이론을 살펴보고 동 제도의 활용이점을 도출하고, 해외 특허신탁사업의 사례를 분석하여 그 시사점으로 우리나라 특허신탁제도 및 사업의 활용 촉진방안에 대해 연구하고자 한다.

特許異議申請制度에 관한 硏究

서을수 충남대학교 대학원 2002 국내석사

This thesis relates to the opposition to the patent granted(hereinafter referred to as "the patent opposition"), especially to problems in the carrying out thereof. The patent opposition is appeal procedure to the grant of the patent that has deficiency in patentability. To make incompleteness of examination, most of country has the patent opposition procedure, including European Patent Office(EPO), Japan, US. There are two types of the patent opposition; post-grant opposition and pre-grant opposition. Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) had converted " pre-grant opposition" into "post-grant opposition" in the wake of the major patent office(USPTO,EPO,JPO etc). This change raise some confusion in practice because the collegial boby of ezaminers have ever examined the patent opposition in Korea. Within three months from the publication of the mention of grant of the grant, "any person" may file in a written opposition the Korean patent granted. In this provision, "any person" should exclude patent proprietor because his patent opposition is agarinst "estoppel". To extent of the examinaion, the Korean patent law declare that examination be restricted to the contested claims. Because the patent opposition is traditional revocation procedure, examination should not be restricted to the grounds for opposition and the claims, provided their validity is prima facie in doubt on the basis of already available information. And exanminer who had participated the grant of that patent should be excluded the collegical body of examiners. Consequently, to solve the confusion of the Korean patent opposition, rearrangement of provision and practice is necessary.