특허청구범위의 ‘실질적 변경’ 관련 해석론 및 입법론

정차호(Jung Cha Ho),윤기승(Yoon Gi Seung) 한국정보법학회 2009 정보법학 Vol.13 No.2

특허청구범위의 실질적 변경과 관련된 해석론으로, 본 고는 (1) 실질적 변경 대비의 대상은 특허청구범위만이며, 명세서 등은 참고될 뿐이고, (2) 같은 번호를 가진 청구항만을 대비하는 것이 아니라 다른 번호를 가진 청구항도 대비되어야 하고, (3) 실질 적 변경과는 별도로 신규사항추가 여부가 판단되어야 하며, (4) 내적 한정의 범위 감축 중 선택발명의 경우 실질적 변경이 있을 수 있고, (5) 내적 한정과 외적 부가는 달리 취급되는 것이 아니라 새로운 목적 또는 효과라는 동일한 기준으로 판단되어야 하며, (6) 실질적 변경 판단의 방법과 진보성 판단의 방법이 매우 유사하다는 점을 설명하였다. 특허청구범위의 실질적 변경과 관련된 입법론으로, 본 고는 ① 실질적 변경 여부의 판단이 너무 어려워서 소모적인 논쟁 및 심결에의 불신 및 불복을 유도한다는 점, ②실질적 변경 요건이 제3자를 보호하기 위한 것이라는 주장이 허구이며, 실질적 변경요건을 삭제하여도 제3자가 피해를 보는 일은 없다는 점, ③ 실질적 변경 요건을 일본 외 다른 국가에서는 채용하고 있지 않으므로 국제적 조화를 이룰 필요가 있다는 점에근거하여 정정에서도 실질적 변경 요건을 삭제하여야 한다고 주장한다. 나아가, 그러한 기회에 정정제도를 총체적으로 개선할 필요가 있으며, 이를 위해 정정심판과 무효심판의 관계 재정립 등 정정제도 전체에 대한 연구가 필요하다고 보았다. As analytic theories regarding substantive change of a patent claim, this paper explains: (1) an object of comparison whether there is substantive change is only claims and other parts of specification is only referred, (2) not only the claim with the same number but also other claims shall be compared, (3) the issue whether new matter has been added shall be separately decided from the substantive change issue, (4) a selection invention which is a type of inward limitations may cause substantive change, (5) an inward limitation and an outward addition shall not be differently treated but be decided under the same criteria, which is new objective and effect, and (6) the methodology for substantive change decision and that for inventive step decision are very similar to each other. As legislative proposals regarding substantive change of a patent claim, this paper proclaims the substantive change requirement had better be deleted during a correction procedure under following reasons: (1) a decision on substantive change is such difficult to induce continuous debates and disbelief and appeals against a trial decision, (2) the argument that the substantive change requirement is necessary to protect the third party is baseless and deletion of the requirement does not cause any harm to the third party, and (3) the substantive change requirement is not applied by other countries except only Japan and the requirement had better be deleted for harmonization of international patent system.

특허권 간접침해 성립의 직접침해의 전제 여부

정차호(Chaho JUNG) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2014 성균관법학 Vol.26 No.3

특허권 간접침해가 성립되기 위해서는 직접침해의 존재가 전제되어야 한다는 종속설 및 전제될 필요가 없다는 독립설이 있다. 이 글은 다음과 같은 이유로 독립설이 타당하지 않음을 밝혔다. 첫째, 독립설이 타당하지 않은 4개의 사례를 제시하였다. 둘째, 종속설이 우리 형법 및 민법의 이론과 상응한다. 셋째, 독립설이 통설이라는 오해에도 불구하고, 주어진 상황에 맞게 종속설 또는 독립설을 유연하게 적용하여야 한다는 주장이 최근 강력하게 대두되었다. 그러나, 현행 법리에 의하면 소비자의 비상업적 행위는 침해가 아니므로, 소비자의 비상업적 행위를 돕는 행위에도 종속설을 적용하게 되면 관련 특허권이 무력해지는 상황이 발생할 수 있다. 그러한 경우에는 독립설이 적용되는 것이 타당하다. 그런데, 종속설이 형법 및 민법의 법리와 조화되는 것이므로 그러한 경우에도 종속설이 적용되게 하는 것이 바람직한 면이 있다. 그래서, 이 글은 소비자의 비상업적 행위를 돕는 행위를 종속설 아래에서 간접침해로 포섭하는 방안을 제시하였다. 즉, 직접침해를 정의하는 규정을 신설하여 비상업적 행위도 직접침해로 포섭하고, 현행 간접침해 규정을 개정하여 간접침해가 직접침해를 전제로 함을 명확하게 하고, 특허권의 효력이 미치지 않는 경우에 ‘비상업적 실시’를 포함시켰다. Regarding the relationship between patent direct infringement and indirect infringement, the “dependence doctrine” demands pre-existence of direct infringement to find indirect infringement and the “independence doctrine” allows indirect infringement regardless of direct infringement. This paper proclaims the dependence doctrine as a proper one based on the following reasons: first, there are at least four situations where the independence doctrine is not proper; second, under the civil law and criminal law jurisprudence, an act to help a legal act must be considered legal and without a principal there could be no accessory; third, nowadays a few high-profile commentators claim the dependence doctrine. However, there is a situation where the independence doctrine is proper: an act which supplies relevant parts to a consumer who is non-commercially working the patented invention. It should be noted that, under current Korean law, a non-commercial working is not regarded as direct infringement. In that situation, to properly protect a patent right, the supplier’s commercial act must be interpreted as indirect infringement. To prevent such supplier from indirectly infringing a patent right and further to adopt dependence doctrine, this paper suggests to amend relevant provisions of the Patent Act as the followings. First, it is strongly recommended to add a new provision which may define direct infringement: an act working the patented invention during patent term in the territory of the Republic of Korea without authority. The definition does not include the limitation “as a business.” Therefore a non-commercial act may be treated as an infringement. Second, to prevent non-commercial private consumers from being sued by the patentee, a new provision may be added, which exempts such non-commercial acts from the effect of a patent right. Under the two new provisions, it would be possible to adopt the dependence doctrine as a basic principle on the relationship between direct and indirect infringements.

특허권 및 전용실시권의 개념 재정립

정차호(Jung, Cha-Ho) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2010 성균관법학 Vol.22 No.3

On the question whether, under the current Korean patent law, a patent right contains a self-exploitation right as well as an exclusive right, this paper negatively answers on following reasons: (1) the Patent Act cannot bestow the inventor applicant with the self-exploitation right which was originally and already his/her right under the natural right theory, (2) TRIPs Agreement Art. 28 prescribes patent right as an exclusive right, (3) other countries, such as the U.S.A. and China, clearly explain so and (4) especially the European Patent Office clearly explains that it is a common misconception that a patent gives its owner the right to make use of his invention. Based on such reasons, this paper strongly proclaims that relevant articles of the Korean Patent Act, such as articles 94, 98, 100, 102, be accordingly amended. If the patent right is a mere exclusive right without self-exploitation right, the right of an exclusive licensee must be within such patent right. Then, to answer the concept of an exclusive license right, this paper further comparatively analyzes laws of the U.S.A., France, Germany and the U.K. Based such study, it could be concluded that (1) the U.S.A. determines exclusive license right not based on the face name of a license agreement but based on assignment of all substantial rights, (2) France puts the exclusive license slightly under the patent right, (3) Germany does over the patent right and (4) the U.K. positions an exclusive license right as the same as the patent right. Current Korean Patent Act seems to follow the U.K. style, considering that many provisions put "or exclusive licensee" after "patentee". If the Korean Patent Act positions the exclusive license right as the same as the patent right, an exclusive licensee may be considered to have the same right as a co-owner of the patent right. Then, determining whether an exclusive licensee alone has standng for a lawsuit, we can look whether a co-owner alone has standing in the same situation. Unfortunately, however, current Korean law is not clear on the standing of a co-owner alone. Therefore, to determine standing of an exclusive licensee, we must wait until the standing issue of a co-owner be resolved.

제법한정물건 청구항 (product-by -process claim) 의 해석에 관한 새로운 제안

정차호(Jung, Cha ho),신혜은(Shin, Hye Eun) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2010 성균관법학 Vol.22 No.1

This paper summarizes that, during prosecution, in researched four countries, the U.S.A., Japan, Europe and Korea, a product-by-process claim is being interpreted as the product itself without considering the relevant process. Furtherrnore, this paper summarizes that, after issuance, the interpretational methodology of a product-by-process claim has not been settled, being distant from being an indisputable law. We, authors, proclaim that (1) a c1aim must be interpreted based on what was invented, disclosed and claimed by the inventor (applicant), and therefore (2) a product-by-process c1aim whose essence is the process must be interpreted considering the c1aimed process and (3) a product-by-process claim whose essence is the product itself must be interpreted without considering the relevant process. This paper further proclaims that a product-by-process claim must be consistently interpreted regardless of its stage, before or after the issuance. To so proclaim, this paper has found that unrestricted application of the broadest reasonable interpretation rule to a product-by-process claim is not corresponding to what the applicant invented, disclosed and claimed.

영업비밀보호를 위한 경업금지와 직무발명자에 대한 정당한 보상의 관계

정차호(Jung, Cha Ho),문선영(Moon, Sun Young) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2009 성균관법학 Vol.21 No.2

Trade secrets can be classified into two categories: technical information and managemental information. Because a trade secret as technical information normally could be an employee invention, if a company enjoys profit due to such an employee invention (trade secret), regardless of patent application filing, the company should pay reasonable compensation (corresponding to said profit) to the trade secret creator (inventor) under Articles 15 and 16 of the Invention Promotion Act. Such compensation must be continuous as far as the company keeps enjoying profit, regardless of the employee's retirement. To prevent an ex-employee from competing against the company, it may proclaim that she will inevitably disclose or exploit its trade secret. In other words, the relevant trade secret provides the company with any kind of economic profit and the competition causes damages to the profit. In that sense, we can deduce such a conclusion that the company should pay reasonable compensation (corresponding to said profit) to her (trade secret creator, inventor). If the company has not payed such compensation, the non-payment is a good evidence that the trade secret has not provided the company with profit and there is no legal basis for the company to file a non-competition suit. If the company files a non-competition suit admitting that there should have been compensation, it should pay reasonable compensation against so-far profit and should keep paying compensation as far as it keeps enjoying profit from the trade secret. If amount of the compensation is nominal, the court may not approve requested non-competition. If relevant trade secret must be protected at the sacrifice of freedom of occupation, exchange of information and free competition, it should provide the company with more than certain amount of profit. Therefore, we can conclude that, filing a non-competition suit, a company should be prepared for paying considerable compensation. So far a company has nothing to lose upon filing a non-competition suit, in that sense, such a suit could have been misused. Such misuse may deter freedom of occupation, exchange of information and free competition. It may restrain misuse of a non-competition suit to consider reasonable compensation on a trader secret with regard to the non-competition suit. It is highly recommended that upon deciding reasonableness of a non-competition agreement, the court consider existence of reasonable compensation as well as the value of trade secret protection and freedom of occupation.

특허권의 소멸과 실시료 지불의무와의 관계

정차호(Jung Cha Ho) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2007 성균관법학 Vol.19 No.2

  Patent license agreement is a very difficult task which requires thorough understanding of relevant technology, patent law and contract law. An agreement drafter must try to minimize possibility of future disputes by prescribing all possible issues. Especially. when two parties agree to pay royalty over than the patent term, they must clarify underlying issues to prevent future disputes.<BR>  With regard to the issue whether licensee must pay royalty after expiration of relevant patent term, before 1960, many U.S. cases held that such provision is enforceable based on the principle of contract freedom. However, after 1960. those provisions are considered to be unenforceable. In this case, licensee is still required to pay the royalty corresponding to the term before the patent term expiration.<BR>  Based on said understanding, licensee may demand a provision which deducts royalty rate if a patent among several patents is being held invalid or being expired. Making a package license agreement based on several patents. licensor must not force such agreement and also give licensee an option not to include one or more patents. Licensee may further demand that, if some claims of a patent are being held invalid but the others are being valid, royalty rate should be deducted as well.

제법한정물건(PbP) 청구항의 해석

정차호(Chaho JUNG) 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2023 성균관법학 Vol.35 No.1

제법한정물건(product-by-process) 청구항(PbP 청구항)의 해석과 관련하여 다양한 의견이 존재하였다. 그러한 이견을 해결하기 위해 대법원이 2011후927 편광필름 전원합의체 판결을 선고하였으나, 그 판결이 사용한 표현의 모호함으로 인해 다양한 의견이 여전히 남게 되었다. 그 2011후927 판결 후 대법원은 2013후1726 쑥추출물 판결, 2013후631 갭 서포터 판결을 선고하였고, 최근에는 2020후11059 직타법 정제 판결을 선고하였다. 이 글은 그 4개 판결을 종합적으로 분석하였고, 그 분석의 결과로 그 4개 판결의 총합이 말하는 법리를 다음과 같이 정리한다. 첫째, 어떤 청구항이 PbP 청구항이라는 이유만으로 바로 특허법 제42조 제4항 제2호가 규정하는 명확성 요건 위배로 처리되지는 않는다. 그러한 해석이 특허법 제42조 제6항의 입법취지와 부합하는 것이라고 생각된다. 둘째, 대법원은 진정 PbP 청구항과 부진정 PbP 청구항을 구별하는 법리를 운용하지 않는다. 그 대신 발명의 실체를 파악한 후, 그 실체에 따라 물건자체설 또는 제법한정설을 적용할 수 있다. 셋째, PbP 청구항의 ‘특허성’ 판단에서도 제조방법의 물건에 대한 영향을 고려하는 것이 대법원의 입장이다. 기존의 이해는 특허성 판단에서는 발명의 실체와 무관하게 물건자체설을 적용한다는 것이었으나, (2013후631 갭 서포터 판결 및) 대상 2020후11059 직타법 정제 판결로 인하여 제조방법(대상 사건에서는 직타법)이 특허성 판단에 영향을 끼침을 알게 되었다. 즉, 해당 발명의 실체가 제조방법인 경우 제법한정설이 적용되어야 하고, 해당 발명의 실체가 물건인 경우 물건자체설이 적용되어야 하는 것이다. 넷째, ‘권리범위’ 판단에서도 제조방법의 물건에 대한 영향에 따라 PbP 청구항이 해석되어야 한다. 즉, 해당 발명의 실체가 제조방법인 경우 제법한정설이 적용되어야 하고, 해당 발명의 실체가 물건인 경우 물건자체설이 적용되어야 하는 것이다. There have been various opinions on interpretation of a product-by-process claim (hereinafter “PbP claim”). To resolve such conflicting opinions, the Korea Supreme Court (hereinafter “KSC”) handed down the 2011 Hu 927 en banc decision. However due to ambiguity of the expressions taken by the decision, there still remain various opinions. After the 2011 Hu 927 decision, KSC made 2013 Hu 1726 mugwort extract decision, 2013 Hu 631 gap supporter decision, and recently 2020 Hu 11059 hitting-method tablet decision. This paper has comprehensively analyzed the four decisions, and as a result of such analysis, summarizes overall jurisprudence of the four decisions as the followings. Firstly, a claim is not rejected under section 42(4)(2) clarity requirement only because it is a PbP claim. Such an analysis is corresponding with legislative intent of section 42(6) of the Patent Act. Secondly, KSC does not distinguish a pure PbP claim from a non-pure PbP claim. After understanding true nature of the invention at issue, based on the true nature, product-itself theory or manufacturing-process-limitation theory would be applied. Thirdly, it is KSC’s position to consider manufacturing process’s effect on the product in determining patentability. Old majority understanding was to apply product-itself theory in determining patentability, regardless of invention’s true nature. However thanks to 2013 Hu 631 gap supporter decision and 2020 Hu 11059 hitting-method tablet decision, we have recognized that manufacturing process (hitting method in the case at issue) affects patentability determination. In other words, if true nature of the invention at issue is manufacturing process, manufacturing-process-limitation theory shall be applied and if true nature of the invention at issue is the product, product-itself theory shall be applied. Fourthly, in determining right scope, effect of manufacturing process on the product shall be considered. In other words, if true nature of the invention at issue is manufacturing process, manufacturing-process-limitation theory shall be applied and if true nature of the invention at issue is the product, product-itself theory shall be applied.

특허청의 착오로 잘못 등록된 PCT 자기지정 특허의 유효 여부

정차호(Jung, Cha Ho),강현호(Kang, Hyun Ho) 성균관대학교 법학연구소 2008 성균관법학 Vol.20 No.3S

The holding of the Supreme Court case in question clarifies that an earlier application under PCT self-designation is considered to be withdrawn 15 months after its filing date. According to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, there were 177 cases, mistakenly registered, notwithstanding the withdrawal consideration, by examiners who overlooked such withdrawals. This article tries to find a ground to invalidate or revoke such an illegal registration under either patent law or administrative law. A patent act provision presents an exclusive list of reasons under which an illegally-registered patent can be invalidated, and the list does not have any ground to invalidate a PCT self-designation patent. Under the administrative law theory, illegal administrative activity can be nullified ex officio or by a litigation raised by the third party. However, such nullification could be limited by the purpose to protect interest of the relevant person who trusted the administrative activity. Under the trust protection principle, which was consistently applied by the Supreme Court, in the case of PCT self-designation patent, two relevant interests (harms) will be compared: one to the patentee caused by invalidation of the patent and the other to the third party caused by existence of the patent. Even though such comparison may be case-by-case decided, in many cases, PCT self-designation patent could be validly maintained under the trust protection principle, notwithstanding the ground of revocation.

직무발명보상금 산정에서의 대상 직무발명의 ‘기여도’ 산정법리

정차호(Chaho JUNG),문려화(WEN L IHUA) 성균관대학교 법학연구원 2019 성균관법학 Vol.31 No.2

이 글은 직무발명보상금 산정에서 기여도를 적용하는 법리를 탐구하였다. 그 탐구의 결과물은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 우리나라 및 일본의 실무에서 가장 큰 문제점은 기여도를 실시료율 및/또는 독점권기여율(초과매출율)에서 다른 요소와 섞어서 산정하는 소위 ‘잡탕식’ 산정방식이 자주 적용된다는 것이다. 그렇게 섞어서 적당히 산정됨에 따라 기여도가 적절히 반영되지도 못하고 기여도 법리가 발전하지도 못한다. 이 글은 기여도의 별도 산정의 중요성을 강조한다. 특히, 대상 제품이 복잡제품인 경우 기여도는 반드시 별도로 산정되어야 한다. 둘째, 직무발명보상금 산정에서의 합리적인 기여도 산정방법을 모색하기 위하여 특허권 침해에 대한 손해배상액 산정에서의 기여도 법리 및 표준필수특허의 기여도 산정을 위 한 하향식(top-down) 산정방법을 분석하였다. 셋째, 표준필수특허에서 실시료과적(royalty over-stacking)의 문제를 해결하는데 하향식(top-down) 산정방법이 적절하듯이, 직무발명에서도 보상금과적(remuneration over-stacking)의 문제를 해결하는데 하향식 산정방법이 적절하다. 그래서, 대상 제품에 적용된 다른 유효한 기술의 수와 대상 직무발명의 수를 비교하고, 대상 직무발명의 상대적 중요도(가중치)를 감안하는 방식이 적용되어야 하는 것이다. 넷째, 하향식 산정방식이 적절하지 않은 경우에는 전체 제품을 기준으로 하여 그것에 기여도를 곱하는 방식과 해당 부품을 기준으로 하여 그것에 기여도를 곱하는 방식을 법원이 주어진 사안에 맞게 선택하여 사용할 수 있을 것이다. 당연히 복잡제품에서는 부품의 가격을 기준으로 하되 그것에 기여도를 추가로 곱할 수 있을 것이다. 다섯째, 기여도를 산정함에 있어서 기여도와 무관한 요소가 같이 고려되는 사례가 많은데, 그러한 오류는 되풀이 되지 않아야 한다. 특히, 기여도는 기술에 관한 사항이므로, 기술과 무관한 사항을 기여도 산정에서 고려하지 않아야 한다. This Article has studied the jurisprudence to apply apportionment ratio in calculating employee invention remuneration. The results of the study are as the followings. Firstly, the biggest problem in Korean and Japanese practices is that a so called “mixed” calculation method is often applied, under which an apportionment ratio is mixed and calculated with other factors in calculating royalty rate and/or excessive sales rate. Because of such mixed and inadequate calculation, an apportionment ratio is not properly reflected and apportionment ratio jurisprudence has not developed. This Article emphasizes importance of a separate calculation of an apportionment ratio. Especially, if the product at issue is a complex product, an apportionment ratio should be calculated separately. Secondly, this Article, to seek a reasonable apportionment ratio calculation method in calculating employee invention remuneration, has analyzed the apportionment ratio jurisprudence in damages calculation in a patent infringement suit and the top-down calculation method used for calculating apportionment ratio of a standard essential patent. In addition, a few more methods introduced in Japanese precedent studies have been scrutinized. I have concluded that such Japanese methods do not have such a possibility to be applied in practice, and that the former two methods could be exploited. Thirdly, as a top-down calculation method is appropriate to solve the problem of royalty over-stacking in a standard essential patent, in an employee invention as well top-down calculation method is appropriate to solve the problem of remuneration over-stacking. Therefore, such a method shall be applied, under which number of other effecive techonologies applied in the product at issue is being compared with number of employee inventions of the plaintiff, and comparative importance of the employee inventions would be considered. Fourthly, in a situation where a top-down calculation method is not appropriate, the court may, under given fact pattern, choose either (1) a total product is being a starting point and an apportionment ratio is applied to it or (2) a component to which the employee invention was applied is being a starting point and an apportionment ratio is applied to it. Naturally, for a complex product, a component shall be a starting point and an apportionment ratio would be multiplied thereof. Fifthly, there have been many cases where irrelevant factors have been considered in calculation an apportionment ratio. Such errors should not be repeated. Especially, an apportionment ratio is a matter regarding technology, such non-technological matters should not be considered in apportionment ratio calculation.

특허권 침해 손해배상액의 선택산정 및 혼합산정 법리

정차호(Jung, Cha Ho),장태미(Jang, Tae Mi) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학연구 Vol.55 No.2

이 글은 특허권 침해에 대한 손해배상액 산정에 있어서, 특허권자 실제 손해에 상응하는 침해품에 대하여는 일실이익 또는 침해자 이익에 의하여 산정을 하고 나머지 침해품에 대하여는 실시료 상당액에 의하여 산정할 수 있는지 여부를 검토한다. 이 글은 그렇게 두 가지 방법을 같이 사용하여 손해배상액을 산정하는 방식을 혼합산정(mixed calculation)이라 칭한다. 대상 쟁점을 해결하기 위하여 이 글은 미국, 일본, 중국 및 유럽의 관련 법리를 비교법적으로 분석하였고, 그에 따라 미국 및 일본에서는 혼합산정을 인정하나, 유럽에서는 선택산정만을, 중국에서는 실시료의 증액제도와 함께 선택산정을 인정하고 있다는 점을 파악하였다. 그러한 이해에 기초하여 이 글은 첫째, 침해자에게 이익이 되는 상황을 방지하고 특허권자를 두텁게 보호하기 위하여 혼합산정 법리를 정식으로 인정하여야 한다고 주장하며, 둘째, 특허권자의 실시능력과 그 외 판매할 수 없는 사정을 구분하지 않고 혼합산정을 인정하여야 함을 주장하며, 셋째, 특허법 제128조 제1항의 문구를 명확하고 간결하게 수정하며, 위의 두 사항을 조문에 반영하도록 개정하여야 한다. This paper, in the case of patent damages calculation, examines whether the infringing products corresponding to the patentee’s real loss may be calculated under lost profit theory or infringer’s profit theory and then the remaining infringing products may be calculated under reasonable royalty theory. This paper coins as “mixed calculation” for the calculation method which utilizes two theories (lost profit plus reasonable royalty or infringer’s profit plus reasonable royalty). In order to solve the given issue, this paper comparatively analyzes relevant jurisprudence of the U.S.A., Japan, China and Europe, and under such analysis, finds that the U.S.A. and Japan permit mixed calculations, Europe allows only selective calculation, China, allowing only selective calculation, permits enhancement of calculated reasonable royalty. Based on such understanding, this paper proposes that: (1) to prevent excessive profit to the infringer and to fairly protect the patent right, mixed calculation must be allowed, (2) mixed calculation must be allowed without differentiating the patentee’s capacity from other reasons from which the patentee could not sell patented products, and (3) to specify said two points and to make Article 128(1) of the Korea Patent Act clearer and more concise, the provision must be amended.