생명공학 관련 특허의 성립성과 In re Bilski 사건

최승재(Choi, Sung Jai),문대영(Daeyoung Moon) 세창출판사 2010 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.59

In 2008, the en banc bench of the Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit made its ruling on In re Bilski case. With the decision, the 12 judge panel suggested the new principle for the patentability named as the Machine or Transformation Rule(MOT Rule) and narrowed down the spectrum of the patentable subject matter which had once been broadened since the State Street Bank case of 1998. The new standard is now considered as firm in America. In consideration of the Federal circuit's change of attitude toward the patentability, this paper covered the case's effects on biotechnology patent. For that, several special issues on the biotechnology patent were dealt with, separated from the general patentability issues. Then, leading cases about the biotechnology patent were looked closely in connection with the Court's 2008 decision. Furthermore, the oral argument session of the Bilski case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court helped inferring certain possibilities. At the end, this paper derived four conclusions. First, the Classen case and the Prometheus case show that the Federal Circuit has been applying the MOT Rule to the biotechnology patents as well as the Business Method patents. The only difference is that the Circuit reads the term 'transformation' differently when it faces the biotech. Second, the Supreme court judges already shows their doubt about the MOT Rule, and reveals that they are aware of the need to handle the biotechnology field distinctly. Third, the impact of the Bilski case seems to get tougher, even it is to the attack against the biotechology patent itself. Fourth, the implications of the Bilski on Korean patent system would be more serious on the biotechnology rather than its original field of Business Method. In summary, the Supreme court's forthcoming decision on Bilski case will affects not only on the patentability examination standard, but also on the application standard of the patentability examination to the biotechnology patent. And it will gives a change to reconsider the Korean patent system, especially whether the definition of invention is suit for the new technology.

글로벌 제약·바이오 기업의 개방형 혁신 특허가 기업 성과에 미치는 영향

이병호(Byoungho Lee),이상원(Sang-Won Lee) 한국산학기술학회 2017 한국산학기술학회논문지 Vol.18 No.9

본 연구는 글로벌 제약 및 바이오 기업을 대상으로 내부특허, 산학특허, 매입특허의 양적 수준이 경영성과에 미치는 영향을 분석함으로써 내부특허 중심으로만 이루어진 기존연구들의 단점을 보완하고자하였다. 기존의 연구방식으로는 산학협력 및 매입을 통해 특허를 확보하고 있는 글로벌 대기업들의 경영성과를 설명하는데 어려움이 있었다. 특히 제약 및 바이오 기업의 경우 M&A를 통한 특허의 매입이 빈번히 일어나고 있어 매입 특허의 분석이 매우 중요함에도 불구하고 하나하나의 특허 명세서를 추적해 권리관계의 변동을 조사해야하는 어려움 때문에 연구가 진행되지 못했었다. 또한 연구방법 측면에서도 기존 성장모형에 특허가 경영성과에 영향을 주는데 걸리는 시간을 감안해 t-3년까지의 유한 시차를 고려한 확장모형을 제시했다. 분석결과 양적 특허수준은 매출에 미치는 영향은 적었고 시장가치에 상대적으로 큰 영향을 미쳤으며 수익에는 중간 정도의 영향력을 미쳤다. 3가지 특허중 기업의 시장가치에는 내부특허가 가장 큰 영향력을 미쳤고 매출과 수익에는 매입특허가 가장 큰 영향력을 나타내었다. 제약 바이오 기업에 있어서 매입특허가 경영성과에 중요한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나오는 이유는 제약 및 바이오 기업의 연구개발이 오랜 시간과 비용이 소요되며, 여러 가지 기술의 융복합이 필요한 연구이기 때문에 빠른 시간 안에 기술을 확보하는 것이 중요하고 이를 위해 기업들이 특허를 매입하거나 M&A를 함으로써 문제를 해결하고 있기 때문으로 판단되어진다. 본 연구는 글로벌 제약 및 바이오 기업들이 최적 특허 포트폴리오 구성을 할 수 있도록 도움을 줄 수 있을 것으로 기대한다. Most studies of the effects of corporate patents on managerial performance conducted to date have been based on internally-generated patents. However, global pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies acquire patents not only from internal research and development (R&D), but also through university-industry collaboration and purchase. Focusing on this issue, our study collected patents from various sources, including internal R&D, purchased patents, and university-industry collaboration, to examine the real effects more accurately. Additionally, our study used a finite time lag model to consider the time lag between patent and corporate performance. The results of the quantitative analysis of the relationship between patents and corporate financial performance revealed that patent quantitative levels had less impact on sales than other types. However, quantitative patents levels appeared to have a significant impact on market value. Moreover, quantitative patent levels appeared to moderate impact on corporate profit. Patents acquired by internal R&D had the greatest impact on market value, while purchased patents had the greatest impact on corporate profit and sales. The purchased patents had a significant effect on financial performance in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies because of the long time required and expense associated with R&D. Overall, the results of this study provide the basis for global pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to configure an optimal patent portfolio.

특허침해에 있어서 공동불법행위 책임에 관한 고찰

김수철 한국지식재산연구원 2012 지식재산연구 Vol.7 No.1

The judgment of patent infringement is decided by the various rules, for example, direct infringement, indirect infringement, or incomplete infringement, on the ground of all elements rule. This judgment of patent infringement is not based on the case that plural entities exploit altogether the elements of patent claim, but the case that one entity exploits all elements of patent claim. The former has the problem whether the joint tort liability could be applicable to the case, because it does not correspond to the all elements rule. Considering the prior standard of patent infringement, joint tort liability, and the cases of joint tort, I would like to suggest one test with regard to the judgment of patent infringement when plural entities exploit respectively some elements. In principle, the exploitation of some elements by plural entities will not be applicable to the patent infringement in principle on the ground that all elements rule is most fundamental basis of patent infringement. Further, one entity among plural which exploits only nonessential element(s) would not be patent infringer, but the other entity which exploits essential element(s) could be incomplete infringer. In the case that one entity induces the other entity (contractor) to exploit one or some elements of patent claim, it is desirable that just one entity will be liable for patent infringement in view of the exploitation of one entity as an inducer or supervisor. In addition, in the case that one entity induces the other entity to exploit all elements of patent claim, just one entity will be liable for patent infringement or joint tort because he actively induces the other entity to infringe a patent. In Korea, joint tort liability on the civil law could not be uncritically applicable to the patent infringement, because it is required for the respective tort. Therefore, it is recommended that judgment of patent infringement is preferentially decided by the prior rule as much as possible, with exceptional cases that superior one entity inducing the other entity to exploit some or all elements of patent claim would be liable for patent infringe or joint tort. 특허침해의 판단은 구성요소완비의 원칙을 기본으로 하여, 직접침해, 간접침해, 또는 예외적인 경우의 불완전 이용침해 등 여러 가지 판단기준에 따라 이루어지고 있다. 이러한 특허침해 판단은 특허발명의 권리범위를 구성하는 청구항의 모든 구성요소를 하나의 주체가 모두 실시하는 것을 전제로 하고 있는데, 2 이상의 주체가청구항의 구성요소를 분담하여 실시하는 경우는 이에 해당하지 않으므로 이러한경우에 대하여 민법상의 공동불법행위를 적용하여야 하는지가 문제될 수 있다. 이와 같이, 특허발명의 일부 구성요소만 실시하는 2 이상의 주체에 대한 특허침해 판단과 관련하여, 기존의 침해 판단 기준, 민법상의 공동불법행위 책임의 기준, 및 공동불법행위 책임이 문제가 되는 사례를 검토함으로써, 공동불법행위 책임의 적용에 대한 한 가지 기준을 제시하고자 한다. 구성요소 완비의 원칙은 특허침해를 판단하는 데 가장 근간이 되는 기본원칙이므로, 2 이상의 주체가 특허발명의 일부 구성요소를 실시하는 경우는 원칙적으로는 특허침해에 해당하지 않는 것으로 판단하되, 하나의 주체가 비본질적인 구성요소만 실시하는 경우에는 본질적인 구성요소를 실시하는 주체를 기준으로 불완전 이용책임의 적용을 고려할 것이며, 특허침해를 회피하기 위하여 고의로 하도급업체 등의 제3자에게 특허발명의 구성요소 중 일부를 실시하도록 하는 경우에는지시/감독에 따른 책임을 고려하여, 지시자/감독자의 실시행위로 간주하여 특허침해 여부를 판단하는 것이 바람직할 듯하다. 물론, 특허발명의 구성요소 전부를 제3자에게 실시하도록 하는 경우에는 타인의 침해를 적극적으로 유도한 것이므로지시자에게는 교사에 따른 공동불법행위 책임을 인정할 수 있을 것이다. 민법상의 공동불법행위 책임은 각자의 불법행위를 전제로 하는 규정이므로,이를 특허침해 판단에 대하여 무비판적으로 적용하는 것은 특허제도의 기준을 위협할 수 있다. 따라서, 가급적 특허침해 판단에 대한 기존의 기준을 유추하여 적용하되, 우월적 지위를 이용하여 제3자에게 특허발명의 구성요소 일부 또는 전부를 실시하도록 강제하는 예외적인 경우에만 공동불법행위의 적용을 고려하는 것이 바람직할 것이다.

Win, lose or draw? The fate of patented inventions

Walsh, J.P.,Lee, Y.N.,Jung, T. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland) 2016 RESEARCH POLICY Vol.45 No.7

Using information from a survey of US inventors, this study explores the reasons for patent non-use and different types of non-use at the patent level, and how this varies by industry and firm characteristics. We find that 55% of triadic patents are commercialized. We also find that 17% of all triadic patents are not commercialized but are at least partially for preemption, though only 3% of all triadic patents are purely preemptive patents. We find that preemptive non-use is less common than failed patents. We then test the discriminating effects of patent effectiveness, competition, firm size and fragmentation of patent rights on the likelihood of preemptive patents. We find that greater patent effectiveness, more competition, and large firm size are associated with greater preemptive non-use relative to commercial use of patents. We conclude with the policy implications of our results.

Quality and Value of Chinese Patenting: An International Perspective

Grid Thoma 서울대학교 경제연구소 2013 Seoul journal of economics Vol.26 No.1

This paper presents a novel analysis of the international dimension of the rapid growth of Chinese patenting and advances an econometric model to scrutinize the determinants of patent granting, prior-art searches, opposition to patents granted, and patent renewal decisions. Our results provide support for the "strategic patenting" hypothesis on the lower value and quality of Chinese patents compared to other patents on average, though a few caveats are in order. On the one hand, I find that the probability of grant for foreign multinational firms is negative although their patents are relative strong regarding the prior art. The low value effect on opposition and renewal decision is moderate. On the other hand, for Chinese indigenous patenting, I do not find ample evidence that there is lower probability of grant, but I do find support that these patents lack adequate prior art research, receive more oppositions, and have shorter renewal life cycle compared to other Chinese patents and other patents on average. The size and experience of the patent owner positively mediate these effects. Hence, the findings are consistent with the assumption that large and younger patenters concentrated in a few industries are responsible for the bulk of strategic patenting.

실시권자의 특허무효심판청구에 관한 소고

김동준(Dong-jun Kim) 충남대학교 법학연구소 2007 法學硏究 Vol.18 No.2

Patent invalidation procedures are different from country to country. According to the Korean Patent Law, the only way of challenging a patent is an invalidation procedure. Any third party can file a request of invalidation against a granted patent within three months of the date of publication of the patent. After that, invalidation may be filed only by an interested party or a patent office examiner. Then, are licensees allowed to file a request of invalidation to challenge the patent right in Korea? The Supreme Court decisions on this issue conflict with each other. While the Court allows licensees to contest the validity of patent in some cases, including 82 Hu 30, the Court denies licensees standing to challenge patent validity in other cases, such as 80 Hu 77. This problem should be solved either by the Supreme Court decision or by legislative action. In the U.S., the Supreme Court waived the doctrine of licensee estoppel and opened the door to licensees to contest the validity of the licensed patent in Lear v. Adkins. Japanese law relating to challenging patent validity changed on January I, 2004. Under the new system, except when challenging the inventorship of a patent, a challenger to patent validity need not have any specific interest in the matter. It is no doubt that the purpose of the invalidation procedure is to prevent defective patents from being protected by the patent law. Licensees may often be the only individuals with enough economic incentive to challenge the patentability of a granted patent. If they are muzzled, the public may continually be required to pay tribute to would-be monopolists without need or justification. I think it plain that the doctrine of licensee estoppel must give way before the demands of the public interest. For the same reason, any power of a licensor to withhold from a licensee freedom to contest the validity of the licensed patent should be denied.

특허권 사칭행위의 범죄화 필요성과 보완에 관한 연구

이욱 ( Li-yu ),제혜금 ( Zhu-huiqin ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2020 법학논총 Vol.44 No.4

중국경제가 끊임없이 급속한 발전을 해가는 중요한 이 시기에, 중국 관련부서 및 법률상으로 지적재산권을 보호해야 하는 과제 또한 갈수록 가중되고 있다. 2008년 6월, 중국 국무원에서 발표한 <국가지식재산권 전략 강요>에서 중국은 혁신적 국가로 나아가는 전략 목표를 세웠다고 밝힌바 있다. 특히, 특허제도에 대한 효율적인 보호는 혁신적인 국가건설의 추진과 중국 과학기술교육을 통한 국가 부흥전략에 대해 막대한 작용을 하고 있으므로, 이에 따른 제도는 필수 불가결한 중요한 제도라고 할 수 있다. 하지만 중국 특허신청수와 대폭 증가한 권한 부여 수에 따라, 그리고 경제에 대한 급속한 발전에 의하여 특허권 침해행위도 다양화되고 복잡한 추세로 양상을 띄우기 시작한다. 이 가운데 일부 특허권 침해행위는 민사, 행정수단만으로 효율적인 보호를 하기는 어렵다. 따라서 특허권의 보호를 강화한 형사처벌이 시급하다. 가짜 특허와 특허권 침해행위는 엄연히 다른 두 가지 개념으로, 전자는 범죄 구성요건에 해당되지만, 후자의 경우는 행정 법규를 위반할 뿐 형법에는 저촉되지는 않는다. 그러나 특허권 침해행위가 사회에 가하는 위해성은 가짜 특허 행위와 별 다를 바 없다. 중국 입법기관에서는 2008년 <특허법>을 개정하면서 특허권 침해행위에 대한 법적 책임을 새롭게 규정하였다. 즉, 특허권 침해행위가 심각하게 적용되는 자에게는 형사책임을 물을 수 있도록 명확하게 규정하게 되었다. 그러나 이후 형법 개정안은 해당 조항에 대해 이 법에 상응하는 수정을 하지 않은 관계로 특허법의 입법 취지를 관철시키지 못하였다. 이로 하여금 중국 형법에서는 단지 타인의 특허권을 침해하는 행위에 대해서 형사처벌을 규정만 했을 뿐, 특허권 침해 행위에는 실질적으로 아무런 관련 규정을 가하지 않았다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 특허권 침해 행위에 대한 현황 및 해외 입법을 통해 연구를 진행할 것이며, 특허권 사칭행위에 대한 범죄화의 필요성과 보완의 필요성을 제시하고자 한다. In the critical period of China’s rapid economic development, China’s relevant departments and legal protection of intellectual property rights are becoming more and more important. In June 2008, the State Council issued the outline of national intellectual property strategy, which established the strategic goal of building China into an innovative country. The effective protection of patent system plays an important role in promoting the construction of an innovative country and the strategy of rejuvenating China through science and education. However, with the rapid development of China’s economy, the number of patent applications and authorizations has increased significantly. With the rapid development of economy, patent infringement has also begun to show a trend of diversification and complexity. Some of these patent infringement behaviors can not be effectively protected only by civil and administrative means. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the criminal protection of patent rights. There are two kinds of counterfeiting patents and counterfeiting patents The former can constitute a crime, while the latter violates administrative regulations and does not violate criminal law. However, the social harmfulness of counterfeiting patent is equivalent to that of counterfeiting patent. When amending the patent law in 2008, China’s legislature redefined the legal liability of patent counterfeiting, clearly stipulating that those who are serious enough to be prosecuted for criminal responsibility. However, the subsequent amendment to the criminal law did not make corresponding amendments to the relevant provisions, resulting in the failure to implement the original legislative intent of the patent law. Therefore, China’s criminal law only provides criminal punishment for the act of counterfeiting other people’s patent, but does not make relevant provisions on the act of counterfeiting patent. Therefore, this paper analyzes the status quo of the act of counterfeiting patent and foreign legislation, and puts forward the necessity and improvement suggestions of criminalizing the act of passing off patent.

특허정보의 유용성에 대한 소고

권인희(Inhee Kwon) 세창출판사 2010 창작과 권리 Vol.- No.59

Patent information means all information in relation to patent applications and issued patents. Therefore it contains very valuable information for researchers and scientists in the process of developing technical innovations. Patent information conveys up-to-date technologies since patents are issued to novel inventions. Patent information is available in vast area of technologies because patentable subject matters include inventions in almost all industrial fields. However patent information is not utilized as much as expected in research and development process. This paper contains some suggestions to increase usefulness of patent information. Descriptions of inventions should reveal all information regarding the inventions to diffuse the achievements for further developments. Inventors provide information barely sufficient to be granted patents under the current law. Experts outside the intellectual property office should be able to participate freely in the examination process of patent applications for quality improvement. Papers published in scientific journals are reviewed and criticized openly by peers to reserve high reputation. Some scientists criticize the recent pro-patent strategies arguing that more intellectual property rights may lead paradoxically to fewer useful products. The current patent system must be revised to increase the usefulness of patent information so that patents accelerate technological innovation, not deter.

특허권 남용에 대한 고찰

강명수 한국지식재산연구원 2014 지식재산연구 Vol.9 No.2

On Korean Patent Act, it is not easily decided by the courtwhether a patent is valid because procedures of infringement andinvalidity of patent are differentiated. Korean Supreme Court has ruled that it would be patent abusewhen a patentee use his/her patent right even though there is aindisputable cause of invalidity in that patent. Therefore, in Korea, therehas been researches focused on whether there is a patent abuse onpatent with invalid causes based on the precedent of Korean SupremeCourt. However, there are lack of studies when rules of patent abuse areenacted and vanished and whether standards of patent abuse on fairtrade sector are proper. In addition, even though there are studies on patent abuse, thesestudies has been restricted to focus only on there are invalid causes ofpatent or patent trolls use patent for their profits. By considering ofdistinctive purpose of Patent Act and Fair Trade Act, standards of patentabuse should be regulated not by Fair Trade Act but by Patent Act. Furthermore, to enact standards of patent abuse, we shouldconsider not only Japanese Patent Act but also in comparison to abuseof a right in Civil Law. In that case, we should divide invalid causesbase on subdivisions of patent abuses into a case there is a cause of bad faith to obtain patent, a case there is a cause of no willing to use patent,and other cases. On effectiveness of patent abuse, we should consider to divide intosending warning letter, filing preservative procedure, filing lawsuit onthe merits, and other. Then, we should analyze distinction oneffectiveness of each action. 침해사건과 무효사건의 절차가 이원화되어 있는 우리 특허법 체계상 침해사건법원이 특허의 무효 여부를 판단할 수 있는지는 쉽게 단정하기 어려운 문제이다. 이에 대해 우리 대법원은 무효사유가 있는 것이 분명한 경우에는 그러한 특허권에기한 권리행사는 특허권의 남용에 해당한다고 판시하였다. 이에 국내에서는 판례의 태도를 중심으로 하여 무효사유가 있는 특허권에 기한 권리행사의 남용여부에대한 연구가 있어 왔다. 하지만 정작 우리 특허법에 특허권 남용에 관한 규정이언제 제정되었다가 폐지되었는지, 그리고 현재 공정거래법 영역에서 특허권 남용의 기준을 정하고 있는 것에 문제는 없는지 등에 대한 고찰이 부족했다고 생각된다. 또한 특허권 남용에 대해서도 특허권에 무효사유가 있는 경우나 비실시기관의특허권 행사와 같이 특정한 부분에 한정되어 논의가 있었던 것이다. 특허법과 공정거래법의 고유한 입법목적을 고려해 볼 때, 특허권 남용의 기준은 공정거래법이아닌 특허법의 영역에서 규정해야 한다. 그리고 특허권 남용에 대한 기준을 마련함에 있어 단지 일본 특허법을 참고할 것이 아니라 특허권 남용의 유형을 구분한후 민법상 권리남용과 어떠한 차이가 있는지를 살펴볼 필요가 있는데, 특허권 취득 자체에 부정한 목적 등이 있는 경우, 특허권을 실시할 의사가 없는 자의 특허권 행사인 경우 등으로 세분화해 볼 수 있다. 그리고 특허권 남용의 효과에 대해서도 경고장 발송 단계, 보전소송 제기 단계, 본안소송 제기 단계 등으로 구분하여 고찰해 보고, 각 행위별 효과상의 차이를 분석한다. 이를 통해 향후 특허권 남용에 대한 연구가 어떤 범위로까지 확장되어 나갈 것인지 하나의 시사점을 찾을수 있다.

영업방법 발명 등 컴퓨터프로그램 관련 발명의 특허법적 보호에 관한 비교법적 고찰

朴俊錫(Jun-Seok Park) 한국비교사법학회 2009 비교사법 Vol.16 No.3

The scope of patentable subject matter in computer software including business method is limited by the consideration that the result will be harmful to the purpose of the patent act if there would be a monopoly on the law of nature, mathematical formula, and abstract ideas. Under this consideration, US Supreme Court have clarified through its decisions in Benson, Flook, and Diehr that the software’s algorithm itself isn’t the patentable subject matter and the patent could be given only if there is substantial practical application of the software. However, US Supreme Court’s decisions have shown a subtle discrepancy in the detailed standard for the application. Since its decision in State Street Bank, US CAFC had taken a pro-patent standard in which any business method with a useful, tangible and concrete result could be patented. This extremely pro-patent test was struck down by the CAFC itself in recent Bilski case where the new machine-or-transformation test governed. On the other hand, the standard set up allegedly by the Diehr decision, in which a software patent shall be given only if the software should transform a particular article into a different state or thing, seems to be inappropriate for the newest and future technology such as electronic signals. As a result, the most probable standard in determining whether a software-related invent is patent-eligible as a process patent or not would be the test set up by the Benson decision. Under Benson test, whether or not software transforms a particular article into a different state or thing will be just a most important factor, not the sole factor in the determination. EPO’s decisions with its criterion for technical character of software have built a higher standard to get a patent than so-called useful, tangible and concrete result test of US. Japan’s interpretation of its own Patent Act requiring the application of the law of nature also seems to be a higher test, as does the Korean court’s interpretation of Korean Patent Act. As compared with the probable result of US Supreme Court’s ruling in Bilski case, the Korean court’s interpretation happens to be pertinent to the matter.