보호범위 판단을 중심으로 한 품종보호권과 특허권의 비교

김동준(Kim, Dong Jun) 충북대학교 법학연구소 2019 과학기술과 법 Vol.10 No.1

Plant varieties can be protected either by the Patent Act or by the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) or by any combination thereof. Unlike the subject matter of patents, an abstract solution to a technical problem, the subject matter of plant varieties right is the variety itself (living organism). Since the subject matter of right is different from each other, the scope of protection of a protected variety is not exactly the same as that of a related patent. Therefore, from the perspective of filing strategies, the breeder or inventor of a plant variety needs to exactly understand the differences of the subject matter and the scope of protection between protected varieties and patents. In addition, the scope of protection of a protected variety should be determined on the basis of the physical material, the plants themselves, and not on the description of the variety. It is difficult to describe the characteristics of a plant variety to the extent that it clearly defines the extent of protection as the patent claims. In particular, for assessing the distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS) criteria, the plant material of the candidate plant is normally compared with control varieties from within the same species in a comparative cultivation. Thus, it is inconsistent and unreasonable to determine infringement based on variety descriptions rather than based on the actual plants. The PVPA does not provide a provision determining the scope of protection of a plant variety. Unlike the Patent Act, there is no description requirement as a basis of rejections or revocations under the PVPA. The characteristics not specified in the variety description, including those specified, should be considered when determining infringement. Although actual plants, as living organisms, may be subject to variations/alterations, the plant material of the protected variety present at the time of infringement and the accused plant material could be compared unless the variation go beyond the tolerance range, in which case the right can not be enforced due to lack of stability. Some difficulties in practice such as difficulties of submitting the actual plant, identifying the characteristics of the protected variety and so on exist even when infringement is determined by variety descriptions. The same principle has been adopted in the U.S., EU and Japan. Nevertheless, the Plant Variety Protection system should be improved in some respects. The case law needs to be developed on the test to determine any variety that is not clearly distinguishable from a protected variety. Although the DNA analysis is not (yet) apt to justify infringement, we need to keep an eye on the development in DNA-profiling technologies. Furthermore, if the scope of protection is not clearly known through the investigation of the register, rebuttal of presumption of negligence should be recognized. Like Article 126-2 of the Patent Act, the PVPA needs to be amended to shift the burden of proof to the accused infringer.

식물신품종보호제도의 개선방안에 관한 검토

김선희,신재호 한국지식재산학회 2023 産業財産權 Vol.- No.76

「식물신품종 보호법」에서는 형식적으로 특허제도와 유사한 방식으로 식 물신품종을 보호하고 있으며, 품종보호 출원을 통해 품종명칭에 대한 상표 권 유사의 권리를 취득할 수 있는 품종명칭등록제도를 함께 운영하고 있다. 전통적인 방법으로 새로운 품종을 육성하는 농어민들이 특허요건을 충족시 킬 수 있도록 출원서류를 작성하는 것은 사실상 불가능하다는 점에서 기존 품종과 차별되는 특성과 육성 경과도표 및 육성 계통도만으로도 신품종에 대한 권리를 취득할 수 있는 식물신품종보호제도는 의미가 있다. 이는 마치 특허제도와 별도로 실용신안제도를 운영하는 것과 그 취지가 유사하다. 다만, 바이오 관련 기술의 발전과 함께 식물신품종 관련 특허출원이 증가 하면서 이로 인한 저촉‧충돌 문제가 발생하지 않도록 하기 위한 제도적 정비 가 필요하다. 즉, 동일한 신품종에 대해 특허권과 품종보호권이 양립할 수 있는 것인지, 자가채종 등 품종보호권의 효력이 제한되는 실시행위에 대해 서도 특허권 행사가 가능한 것인지, 품종보호권으로 보호되는 보호품종의 육종방법에 대해 제3자가 특허권을 취득한 경우의 그 취급 등 전반적인 검토가 필요하다. 식물신품종보호제도에 대한 보다 큰 관심과 활발한 후속 연구를 바탕으로 품종의 고품질화를 통한 종자산업의 발전 및 식량 안보 강화에 도움이 되길 기대한다. In the New Plant Variety Protection Act, the right to monopolize the implementation as a business is granted through procedures such as application, examination, and establishment registration, which formally is very similar to the patent system in protecting plant new varieties. However, upon closer examination, there are notable differences in terms of protection requirements, the concept of implementation, limitations on efficacy, and the duration of validity. Moreover, the operation of a variety name registration system, through which one can acquire rights similar to trademark rights for variety names via plant variety protection applications, is quite exceptional in the framework of intellectual property law. In other words, the New Plant Variety Protection Act, by protecting the rights of breeders, encourages the development of new varieties, and by preventing confusion of variety names, contributes to the maintenance of trading order and industrial development, thus sharing the roles of patent and trademark systems. This paper aims to discuss the improvement measures of the Plant Variety Protection System by reviewing and comparing it with the patent system, and examining the variety name registration system. Particularly, although there are regulations adjusting the relationship with the trademark law in the variety name registration system, there is absolutely no legislative measure prepared for adjusting the relationship with the patent law where the subject of protection can overlap. Hence, this paper discusses improvement measures centering around the relationships with trademark and patent laws.

유럽연합 식물신품종보호제도에 대한 고찰

박찬웅(Chan-Woong Park),최근진(Keun-Jin Choi),소은희(Eun-Hee Soh),고희종(Hee-Jong Koh) 한국육종학회 2015 한국육종학회지 Vol.47 No.3

Community Plant Variety Rights (CPVR) system was introduced in 1995 in European Union. This right guarantees the exclusive exploitation rights for a plant variety and is effective in 28 EU member states through a single application to the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO). The legal basis for the CPVR system is found in the Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (the Basic Regulation). The scope of protection in the Basic Regulation is extended in the same way in UPOV 1991 convention. However, the protection of harvested material is not sufficiently well-defined in the Basic Regulation resulting in uncertainties and loopholes in the CPVR. By exceptions to the breeder’s right provision, farmers may save seed for some species provided that they pay an appropriate royalty to rights’ holder which is lower than that of equivalent certified seed. CPVR holderscurrently find it difficult to obtain royalties for farm saved seed (FSS) use, in part due to the difficulty in requesting information from farmers. The provision for ‘Essentially Derived Varieties’ (EDVs) helps to protect against plagiarism of plant varieties that are too similar to one another. However, there is no standardized protocol or threshold developed by CPVO to determine EDVs. The CPVR law provides a harmonized intellectual property regime for plant varieties at EU level, but enforcement varies widely in practice in Member States. And in some cases dispute resolution mechanisms are not easily accessible. This is considered to be one of the biggest problems inhibiting an effective EU-wide plant variety rights system.

식물신품종보호제도 이후 나라꽃 무궁화의 국내외 연구동향 및 확대 이용 방안

강호철,김동엽,왕예가,하유미 한국조경학회 2019 韓國造景學會誌 Vol.47 No.5

This study was carried out to investigate the domestic and international development of a new cultivar of the Rose of Sharon (Hibiscus syriacus L.), the Korean national flower, and the protection of the new plant variety. In addition, it will be used as basic data for the expansion of domestic distribution, promoting oversea export, and expanding the range of landscape architectural use. A total of 97 varieties received plant variety protection rights from the Korea Seed & Variety Service from 2004 to 2018. The selection criteria were plants having unique flowers, growth habits, and variegated leaves. Some cultivars with unique features, such as flower size, shape, and red eyes were available for focus planting. Plant varieties with tall and strong growth patterns have been highly valuable for street and focus planting. Cultivars with dwarf stems and compact branches are utilized for pot planting and bonsai. The protected cultivars were mostly single flower varieties, with two semi-double flowers. There were 57 cultivars of pink flowers with red eyes and 21 cultivars of white flowers with red eyes. There were 61 cultivars developed by crossing, 23 cultivars through interspecific hybridization and 7 cultivars developed through radiation treatment and mutation. The Hibiscus cultivars registered to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) consisted of seven cultivars each from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, four from South Korea, and three from Belgium. The Hibiscus cultivars registered to the European Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) consisted of 16 cultivars from France, 9 from the Netherlands, 5 from the UK and 1 from Belgium. The cultivars that received both plant patent and plant breeder rights in the United States and Canada were `America Irene Scott`, `Antong Two`, `CARPA`, `DVPazurri`, `Gandini Santiago`, `Gandini van Aart`, `ILVO347`, `ILVOPS`, `JWNWOOD 4`, `Notwood3`, `RWOODS5` ,`SHIMCR1`, `SHIMRR38`, `SHIMRV24`, and `THEISSHSSTL`. `SHIMCR1` and `SHIMRV24` acquired both domestic plant protection rights and overseas plant patents. The 14 cultivars that received both US plant patents and European protection rights were `America Irene Scott`, `Bricutts`, `DVPAZURRI`, `Gandini Santiago`, `Gandini van Aart`, `JWNWOOD4`, `MINDOUB1`, `MINDOUR1`, `MINDOUV5`, `NOTWOOD3`, `RWOODS5`, `RWOODS6`, `Summer Holiday`, and `Summer Night`. The cultivars that obtained US patents consisted of 18 cultivars (52.9%) with double flowers, 4 cultivars (11.8%) with semi-double flowers, and 12 cultivars (35.3%) with single flowers. The cultivars that obtained European new variety protection rights, consisted of 11 cultivars (34.3%) with double flowers, 12 cultivars (21.9%) with semi-double flowers, and 14 cultivars (43.8%) with single flowers. In the future, new cultivars of H. syriacus need to be developed in order to expand domestic distribution and export abroad. In addition, when developing new cultivars, it is required to develop cultivars with shorter branches for use in flower beds, borders, hedges, and pot planting. 본 연구는 국제 식물 신품종 보호제도가 실시된 이후 나라꽃 무궁화의 국내외 개발 동향을 조사 분석하고, 향후 나라꽃 무궁화를 국내 보급 확대뿐만 아니라, 해외수출을 촉진시키고, 활용범위를 넓히기 위한 기초 자료로 이용하고자 하였다. 국내에서 개발된 무궁화 품종 중 2004년부터 2018년까지 국립종자원에서 품종보호권 번호를 획득한 품종은 총 97개였다. 국내 육성 품종 중 꽃이 특이한 품종들은 정원 내 초점식재용으로 활용이 가능하였으며, 수세가 강하고 키가 큰 교목성 품종들은 가로수 및 초점식재용으로, 가지의 배열이 조밀하고 키가 작은 왜성형은 분화 및 분재용으로 이용되었다. 국내 품종보호권을 획득한 품종들은 대부분 홑꽃이었으며, 반겹꽃 품종은 2개, 겹꽃 품종은 전혀 없었다. 꽃색의 경우, 꽃잎이 분홍으로 단심이 있는 품종이 57개로 가장 많았으며, 흰색 꽃잎에 단심이 있는 품종이 21개로 많았다. 국내 품종보호권을 획득한 품종 중 교잡육종법으로 개발된 품종이 61개로 가장 많았으며, 다음으로 종간 교배육종을 통해 육성된 품종이 23개, 방사선 처리와 돌연변이 육종으로 개발된 품종이 7개였다. 미국 특허청(USPTO)에 출원한 무궁화 품종은 미국, 영국, 네델란드에서 각각 7개로 가장 많았으며, 다음은 한국에서 4개 품종, 벨기에에서 3개 품종이 등록되어 총 34 품종이었다. 유럽공동체 식물품종사무국(CPVO)에 등록한 무궁화 품종은 프랑스에서 육성된 품종이 16개 품종으로 가장 많았으며, 다음은 네델란드에서 9개 품종, 영국에서 5개 품종, 벨기에에서 1개 품종으로 총 32 품종이었다. 미국과 캐나다에서 동시에 식물 특허 및 식물 육성자 권리를 받은 품종은 `America Irene Scott’, `Antong Two’, `CARPA’, `DVPazurri’, `Gandini Santiago’, `Gandini van Aart’, `ILVO347’, `ILVOPS’, `JWNWOOD 4’, `Notwood3’, `RWOODS5’, `SHIMCR1’, `SHIMRR38’, `SHIMRV24’, `THEISSHSSTL’ 등 15 품종이었다. 국내 품종보호권과 해외 식물 특허를 동시에 취득한 품종으로 `SHIMCR1`과 `SHIMRV24`이 있었다. 미국 식물 특허와 유럽 신품종보호권을 동시에 받은 무궁화 품종은 총 14 품종이었다. 미국 식물 특허권을 획득한 무궁화 품종 중 겹꽃 품종이 18개(52.9%), 반겹꽃이 4개(11.8%), 홑꽃 품종이 12개(35.3%)로 나타나 겹꽃 품종이 많았으며, 유럽 품종보호권을 획득한 무궁화 품종에서도 겹꽃 품종이 11개(34.3%), 반겹꽃이 7개(21.9%), 홑꽃 품종이 14개(43.8%)로 나타나 미국과 같은 결과를 보였다. 향후 나라꽃 무궁화의 품종은 국내 보급 확대 및 해외 수출을 위해서는 꽃의 종류가 홑꽃에서 겹꽃 품종의 개발이 요구되어지며, 꽃색 또한 적색, 청색 등 다양해야 할 것이다. 또한 무궁화 품종의 신품종 개발 시 미국 및 유럽품종처럼 화단 지피용 및 가장 자리식재용으로 이용하기 위해 키가 작고 가지가 아래로 향하는 품종 개발이 요구되어야 할 것이다. 또한 키가 작고 마디의 길이가 짧으며 분지각도가 좁은 품종을 개발하여 분화용 및 분재용으로 개발하여 실내에서도 무궁화를 감상할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다.

품종보호권과 특허권의 이용·저촉관계에 관한 쟁점과 해결 방안

이철남 한국지식재산연구원 2015 지식재산연구 Vol.10 No.4

Today, seed industry is very important in the perspective of security and economy. Multinational seed companies such as Monsanto have been making large investments and trying to receive intellectual property protection for the results of the investment. New plant varieties can be protected by the plant variety protection law and patent law at the same time. As a result, there occur issues concerning the relationship between plant variety right and patent. But, both plant variety protection law and patent law do not define the use and conflict of those rights clearly. Article 98 of the patent law regulates the use of patented invention and conflicts with another person’s intellectual property rights such as patent, utility model right, design right and trade mark. But it does not include plant variety right. At this point, the current law has some problems with the increasing importance of intellectual property rights regarding seed. This research suggests practical revision of article 98, article 105 and article 108 of patent act, taking the connection with plant variety right into consideration. It also presents legal improvements to regulate the use and conflict of variety right and patent, by introducing a couple of new provisions into plant variety protection act. 식량안보 및 산업적 측면에서 최근 전 세계적으로 종자산업의 중요성이 부각되고 있으며, 몬산토 등 다국적 종자기업들은 대규모 투자를 함과 동시에 그 결과물에 대해서는 지식재산권 보호를 받기 위한 노력을 하고 있다. 현행법상 새로운식물 품종은 식물신품종보호법과 특허법에 의한 중첩적 보호가 가능한데, 그 결과동일 또는 관련된 품종에 대해 품종보호권과 특허권 간의 이용 및 저촉관계가 발생할 수 있다. 그런데, 품종보호권과 특허권의 이용·저촉관계와 관련하여 현행법률들은 명시적인 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 특허권과 다른 지식재산권과의 이용· 저촉관계에 대해서 특허법 제98조는 타인의 특허발명·등록실용신안 또는 등록디자인이나 이와 유사한 디자인과의 이용관계와, 타인의 디자인권 또는 상표권과의 저촉관계에 대해서는 규정하고 있지만, 품종보호권과의 이용·저촉관계에 대해서는 침묵하고 있다. 종자를 둘러싼 지식재산권의 중요성이 높아지고 있는 현재, 이와 같은 현행법의 태도는 문제가 있다. 본 논문에서는 품종보호권과의 관계를 고려하여 특허법 제98조, 제105조 및 제138조의 개정 방안을 구체적으로제시하는 한편, 식물신품종보호법에도 특허권과의 관계에 관한 조항, 통상실시권허여의 심판에 관한 조항, 특허권 존속기간 만료후의 통상실시권에 관한 조항을새롭게 도입하는 방안을 제시함으로써 품종보호권과 특허권의 이용·저촉관계를규율하는 제도적 개선안을 제안한다.

신품종 중첩적 보호의 법적 과제

전삼현 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2019 法學論叢 Vol.44 No.-

Korea is being considered as one of the countries which market size of seed is small. In addition, Korea is evaluated as a country which have minus trade balance of seed for the long time. Therefore, it is very urgent to make the promoting legal system for the seed development. For example, France and Netherland are similar to Korea in terms of trade balance and country quantity. But there is a big gap in quality of seed trade balance between Korea and two countries. In 2016, Korea recorded minus 48 milion dollar in seed international trade, but France made plus 961 milion dollars and Netherland, plus 993 milion dollars. That means, if Korea make a good legal system for the seed development, it could have a positive potential to be a developed country in terms of seed trade balance. Korea have legal system which new plant varieties can be protected by the plant variety protection act and patent act at the same time. It means that rights are overlaped between plant variety protection and patent. Therefore, there could occur legal disputes in terms of the relationship between plant variety right and patent. Nevertherless, both acts do not define the use and conflict of those rights clearly. However, article 98 of the Korea's patent act regulates the use of patented invention and conflicts with another person’s intellectual property rights such as patent, utility model right, design right and trade mark. But it does not include plant variety right. In order to make the problem clearly, it could be the best solution to make revisions of the Plant Variety Act and the Patent Act. This research suggests practical revision of article 98 patent act, taking the connection with plant variety right into consideration. In addition, revision of article 67 plant variety protection act, too. 우리나라의 종자산업은 그 시장규모가 작을 뿐만 아니라 국제교역과 관련한 무역수지 적자구조에 빠져 있으며, 향후에도 종자사용에 대한 해외 기업에 지급해야 하는 로얄티가 점차적으로 급증할 것으로 예상된다. 그러나 우리나라와 규모가 유사하면서도 종자산업을 성장동력으로 삼아 대규모의 무역수지 흑자를 내는 선진국들이 존재하고 있어 우리에게 시사하는 바가 크다. 대표적으로 네덜란드와 프랑스, 독일 등을 그 예로 들 수 있다. 우리나라도 이처럼 종자산업의 육성을 위해서는 종자개발에 장애요인이 될 수 있는 문제점들을 법제도적으로 개선하는 것이 필요하다고 본다. 이와 관련해서 현재는 새로운 종자를 특허출원이나 품종출원 또는 등록을 하고자 하는 경우 선출원자가 허락하지 않는 경우 신품종, 즉 새로운 종자를 개발하는데 장애요인으로 등장하면서 종자개발을 촉진하는데 제도적인 어려움을 겪을 수 있다. 현재 우리 식물신품종보호법상 신품종등록과 관련해서 품종보호권자가 자신의 보호품종을 실시할 때 선원 특허권자의 허락을 얻어야 하는지 여부와 관련해서 아무런 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 특허법 98조 내에 열거하고 있는 “타인의 특허발명·등록실용신안 또는 등록디자인이나 그 디자인과 유사한 디자인”에 식물신품종도 추가로 열거하는 입법적 방법이 필요하다고 본다. 그리고 식물신품종보호법의 경우에는 제67조에 제7항을 신설하여 “타인의 특허발명·등록실용신안 또는 등록디자인이나 그 디자인과 유사한 디자인”과 관련하여 농림축산식품부장관 또는 해양수산부장관에게 통상실시권 설정에 관한 재정(裁定)을 청구할 수 있도록 하는 규정을 신설하는 것이 바람직한 입법방안이 될 수 있다고 본다.

종자 관련 특허권과 품종보호권의 효력범위의 차이에 관한 고찰

이철남 忠南大學校 法學硏究所 2015 法學硏究 Vol.26 No.2

Plant Variety Right and Patent are the typical intellectual property rights which protect new plant variety. They have been developed in different historical contexts resulting in the discrepancy in their requisites for protection and legal effect. In Korea, WTO/TRIPs has brought in the introduction of Plant Variety Right. And, with the advancement of bio technology, plant patent system has been revised recently. UPOV system has been applied to seed industry quite a long time and reflected the distinctiveness of seed industry. On the contrary, patent system has been applied mainly to machinery, electrical and electronic equipment and chemical industry and quite recently it has been applied to seed industry. EU and its member states have several provisions in their patent law to limit patent right in order to reflect the distinctiveness of seed industry. It is desirable to put some limitation on patent law in Korea when it comes to breeding other plant variety, and farmer’s harvest for his own propagation on his own farm. 새로운 품종을 보호하는 대표적인 지식재산권으로서는 품종보호권과 특허권이 있는데, 양 제도는 서로 다른 역사적 맥락 속에서 발전해 왔으며, 그 결과 보호요건이나 효력에서 차이가 있다. 국내의 경우 WTO/TRIPs를 계기로 품종보호권이 도입되었으며, 생명공학기술의 발전에 의한 종자관련 특허 출원이 증가함에 따라 식물특허제도를 정비하는 등, 종자에 관한 지식재산권 체계가 정착되고 있는 것은 비교적 최근의 일이다. UPOV 체계는 전 세계적으로 비교적 오랜 기간 동안 종자산업에 적용되어 왔으며, 그 과정에서 종자 산업의 특수성을 반영해 왔다. 반면, 특허제도는 주로 기계, 전기전자, 화학 등의 산업에 적용되어 왔으며, 종자산업에 적용된 것은 비교적 최근의 일이다. 유럽연합의 경우 종자산업의 특수성을 반영하여 특허권을 제한하는 규정들을 몇 가지 두고 있다. 그 중에서 다른 품종을 육성하기 위해 실시하는 행위, 자가생산을 위한 농부의 자가채종에 관한 특허권의 제한 규정은, 우리 종자시장의 상황 등을 고려할 때, 우리 특허법에도 반영하는 것이 바람직하다고 본다.

Border Enforcement of Plant Variety Rights: A Comparison between Japan and Taiwan

Shun-liang Hsu 이준국제법연구원 2012 Journal of East Asia and International Law Vol.5 No.1

다문화 사회에 있어서 다양성의 가치 실현과 법적 과제

김춘환(Choon Hwan Kim) 한국국가법학회 2011 공법논총 Vol.7 No.1

In order to make the social integration in the multiculturalism society, we have to recognize the existence of the different minority and must respect their value of the variety. In order to solve these problems, we have to prepare the legal and institutional system which supports the minority. Affirmative action which introduced to the United States is well known as a social care about the minority. This paper was reviewed the legal and institutional investigation for making a social integration and recognize the value of variety from all races in the multiculturalism society.

산림식물 품종보호제도 현황과 전망

장용석(Yong-Seok Jang),권용락(Yong-Rak Kwon),김태훈(Tae Hoon Kim) 한국육종학회 2020 한국육종학회지 Vol.52 No.S

The plant variety protection system (PVP), which started in 1968 to protect the rights of breeders, was first launched in Korea in 1998 with 27 species, including rice and barley. In 2008, the forest sector started the PVP system, which was later than the agricultural sector, and included 15 species of chestnut, oak mushroom, etc. It was then extended to all plants species in 2012. The new plant variety protection system protects the rights of the breeder for a new variety when it has novelty, denomination, distinctness, uniformity, and stability. In the past decade, a total of 424 new varieties of forest plant applications have been filed, and 193 new varieties have been registered. The number of applications of new varieties has increased every year, with 18 new varieties applied in the early stages of the forest sector’s PVP system, and 20~30 new varieties are registered each year. In the early stages of the operation of the PVP system, the central and local governments mainly took the applications (82 applications), but recently, due to consulting, promotion of the PVP system and support of breeders, applications to the private sector, such as individual breeders and the seed industry have increased (107 applications). The National Forest Seed Variety Center (NFSV) publishes Test Guidelines (292 books) and DUS test manuals (7 books), and conducts the “PVP system information session” every year of the PVP system settlement. NFSV will continue to implement policies for protecting the rights of breeders and the development of the bio-industry sector. These efforts provide a new provision against the Nagoya Protocol Paradigm with the promotion of the forest bio-industry.