RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI우수등재

      독일에서 특허권 침해와 손해배상 산정 - 실시료 상당액 산정 방법을 중심으로 - = A Study on Methods to Calculate Damages Caused by Patent Infringement

      한글로보기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Korean Patent Act Article 128(6) stipulates “Notwithstanding paragraph (5), the amount of loss exceeding the amount specified in the same paragraph may also be claimed as damages. In such cases, the court may consider the fact that there was no intentional conduct or gross negligence on the part of the person who infringed the patent or exclusive license in determining the damages.” In relation to this regulation, the patentee can choose one of the three methods of calculating damages. Thus, there is a view that it is possible to calculate the amount of damages in excess of the license fee equivalent, the view that a license fee equivalent amount is stipulated as the minimum damage compensation amount, and there is a view that it is possible to calculate a mixture of two or more calculation methods for a single infringement case. In consideration of these views, it was discussed whether under a principle of German patent law it is permissible for a patent holder to seek compensation for damages equivalent to a license fee in parallel with seeking a lost profits due to infringement or returning the profits of the infringer as their own damages. Additionally, it was also discussed whether or not a loss equivalent to the license fee could be claimed for the dismissal where a right holder claims loss of lost profits and some of them are dismissed due to presumed reasons for destruction such as exceeding the performance capability.
      The German Federal Supreme Court clarifies it is not a change of lawsuit to change the infringer's profit or lost profits to a license fee equivalent or vice versa, because such change is not applied to a new lawsuit. Moreover, the Federal Supreme Court maintains a consistent stance that various methods of calculating damages are not a variety of claims based on various legal basis but a variety of liquidation forms for unified calculation of damages, taking a position that the right to choose the method for calculating compensation for damages belongs to the right holder, and this right is terminated when compensation has been fulfilled by the chosen method or when the claim is validated. The Federal Supreme Court, nonetheless, has decreed that it is not allowed to claim damages in any method other than the amount equivalent to the selected license fee and that the right holder is bound by the method of calculating damages that he or she chooses. In conclusion, in Korea, it could be desirable to have specific discussions about consideration in calculating the amount equivalent to license fees, changes in the method of calculating damages, mixed calculation, deductible expenses, and so on.
      번역하기

      Korean Patent Act Article 128(6) stipulates “Notwithstanding paragraph (5), the amount of loss exceeding the amount specified in the same paragraph may also be claimed as damages. In such cases, the court may consider the fact that there was no inte...

      Korean Patent Act Article 128(6) stipulates “Notwithstanding paragraph (5), the amount of loss exceeding the amount specified in the same paragraph may also be claimed as damages. In such cases, the court may consider the fact that there was no intentional conduct or gross negligence on the part of the person who infringed the patent or exclusive license in determining the damages.” In relation to this regulation, the patentee can choose one of the three methods of calculating damages. Thus, there is a view that it is possible to calculate the amount of damages in excess of the license fee equivalent, the view that a license fee equivalent amount is stipulated as the minimum damage compensation amount, and there is a view that it is possible to calculate a mixture of two or more calculation methods for a single infringement case. In consideration of these views, it was discussed whether under a principle of German patent law it is permissible for a patent holder to seek compensation for damages equivalent to a license fee in parallel with seeking a lost profits due to infringement or returning the profits of the infringer as their own damages. Additionally, it was also discussed whether or not a loss equivalent to the license fee could be claimed for the dismissal where a right holder claims loss of lost profits and some of them are dismissed due to presumed reasons for destruction such as exceeding the performance capability.
      The German Federal Supreme Court clarifies it is not a change of lawsuit to change the infringer's profit or lost profits to a license fee equivalent or vice versa, because such change is not applied to a new lawsuit. Moreover, the Federal Supreme Court maintains a consistent stance that various methods of calculating damages are not a variety of claims based on various legal basis but a variety of liquidation forms for unified calculation of damages, taking a position that the right to choose the method for calculating compensation for damages belongs to the right holder, and this right is terminated when compensation has been fulfilled by the chosen method or when the claim is validated. The Federal Supreme Court, nonetheless, has decreed that it is not allowed to claim damages in any method other than the amount equivalent to the selected license fee and that the right holder is bound by the method of calculating damages that he or she chooses. In conclusion, in Korea, it could be desirable to have specific discussions about consideration in calculating the amount equivalent to license fees, changes in the method of calculating damages, mixed calculation, deductible expenses, and so on.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 심미랑, "특허침해에 대한 손해배상액으로서 실시료 상당액" 안암법학회 (37) : 653-688, 2012

      2 박성수, "특허침해로 인한 손해배상액의 산정에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 대학원 2006

      3 조영선, "특허실시권자의 손해배상 및 금지청구권" 한국법학원 (110) : 83-120, 2009

      4 정상조, "특허법주해 Ⅱ" 박영사 2010

      5 정상조, "특허법 주해 I" 박영사 2010

      6 장태미, "특허법 제128조 제5항의 실시료 상당액 -초과 법리 및 경과실 참작 법리-" 한국지식재산학회 (46) : 81-134, 2015

      7 김재국, "특허권침해에 대한 손해배상 -특허법 제128조 제3항, 제4항, 제5항-" 한국기업법학회 21 (21): 395-416, 2007

      8 김재국, "특허권침해에 대한 損害賠償 - 특허법 제128조 제1항, 제2항 -" 한국기업법학회 20 (20): 461-484, 2006

      9 김철환, "특허권침해로 인한 손해배상액의 산정방법" 세창출판사 (40) : 2005

      10 안원모, "특허권의 침해와 손해배상" 세창출판사 2005

      1 심미랑, "특허침해에 대한 손해배상액으로서 실시료 상당액" 안암법학회 (37) : 653-688, 2012

      2 박성수, "특허침해로 인한 손해배상액의 산정에 관한 연구" 서울대학교 대학원 2006

      3 조영선, "특허실시권자의 손해배상 및 금지청구권" 한국법학원 (110) : 83-120, 2009

      4 정상조, "특허법주해 Ⅱ" 박영사 2010

      5 정상조, "특허법 주해 I" 박영사 2010

      6 장태미, "특허법 제128조 제5항의 실시료 상당액 -초과 법리 및 경과실 참작 법리-" 한국지식재산학회 (46) : 81-134, 2015

      7 김재국, "특허권침해에 대한 손해배상 -특허법 제128조 제3항, 제4항, 제5항-" 한국기업법학회 21 (21): 395-416, 2007

      8 김재국, "특허권침해에 대한 損害賠償 - 특허법 제128조 제1항, 제2항 -" 한국기업법학회 20 (20): 461-484, 2006

      9 김철환, "특허권침해로 인한 손해배상액의 산정방법" 세창출판사 (40) : 2005

      10 안원모, "특허권의 침해와 손해배상" 세창출판사 2005

      11 김기영, "특허권의 보호 및 강화를 위한 독일입법의 동향 : 지적재산권집행지침과 독일의 국내법적 수용을 중심으로" 한국지식재산연구원 4 (4): 2009

      12 이원복, "특허권, 상표권 침해자의 이익법리 등 손해배상제도 개선방안 연구" 특허청 2018

      13 전효숙, "특허권 침해로 인한 손해배상" 한국법학원 30 (30): 1997

      14 정차호, "특허권 침해 손해배상액의 선택산정 및 혼합산정 법리" 법학연구소 55 (55): 151-177, 2014

      15 정차호, "직무발명보상금 산정을 위한 회사 이익액의 산정에 있어서 실시료율(royalty rate) 적용방법: 그 개념 및 장점의 설명" 과학기술법연구원 25 (25): 105-163, 2019

      16 김상중, "지적재산권 침해로 인한 손해배상책임 : 손해배상법의 현대적 발전경향의 관점에서" 한국재산법학회 31 (31): 249-290, 2014

      17 송영식, "지적소유권법(하)" 육법사 2013

      18 송영식, "지적소유권법(상)" 육법사 2008

      19 송영식, "지적소유권법 (상)" 육법사 2013

      20 안효질, "저작권집중관리단체의 복지제도의 현황과 그 개선방안 - 독일집중관리단체와 한국음악실 연자연합회의 비교를 중심으로 -" 한국저작권위원회 (겨울) : 2018

      21 오승종, "저작권법" 박영사 2016

      22 조영선, "불사용 상표에 대한 침해와 손해배상" 대한변호사협회 (437) : 6-22, 2013

      23 현대호, "민법전과 지적재산권법의 손해배상제도에 관한 연구" 세창출판사 (29) : 2002

      24 김병일, "독일에서의 특허권침해 손해배상액 산정 및 기준에 관한 연구" 한국지식재산학회 (57) : 57-109, 2018

      25 윤선희, "特許權侵害에 있어 損害賠償額의 算定 - 특허법 제128조 제1항의 이해 -" 한국법학원 (80) : 109-135, 2004

      26 Lindenmaier, "Zur Höhe der Lizenzgebühr als Entschädigung für Patentverletzung"

      27 Götting, "Vom Right of Privacy zum Right of Publicity - Die Anerkennung eines Immaterialgüterrechts an der eigenen Persönlichkeit im amerikanischen Recht -"

      28 Heermann, "Schadensersatz und Bereicherungsausgleich bei Patentrechtsverletzungen"

      29 Kraßer, "Schadensersatz für Verletzungen von gewerblichen Schutzrechten und Urheberrechten nach deutschem Recht"

      30 Pietzcker, "Schadensersatz durch Lizenzberechnung"

      31 Pietzcker, "Richtlinien für die Bemessung von Schadensersatz bei der Verletzung von Patenten (71) - Bericht erstattet im Namen der deutschen Landesgruppe"

      32 Preu, "Richtlinien für die Bemessung von Schadenersatz bei Verletzung von Patenten"

      33 Kitz, "Rechtsdurchsetzung im geistigen Eigentum - die neuen Regeln"

      34 Götting, "Persönlichkeitsmerkmale von verstorbenen Personen der Zeitgeschichte als Marke"

      35 Kraßer, "Patentrecht" C. H. Beck 2016

      36 Kraßer, "Patentrecht" C.H.Beck 2009

      37 Schulte, "Patentgesetz mit Europäischem Patentübereinkommen, 9. Auflage" Carl Heymanns Verlag 2014

      38 Benkard, "Patentgesetz" C.H.Beck 2006

      39 Dreier, "Kompensation und Prävention - Rechtsfolgen unerlaubter Handlung im Bürgerlichen, Immaterialgüter- und Wetbewerbsrecht" Mohr Siebeck 2002

      40 Delahaye, "Kernprobleme der Schadensberechnungsarten bei Schutzrechtsverletzungen"

      41 Grabinski, "Gewinnherausgabe nach Patentverletzung – Zur gerichtlchen Praxis acht Jahre nach dem “Gemeinkostenanteil”-Urteil des BGB"

      42 v. Ungern-Sterberg, "Einwirkung der Durchsetzungsrichtlinie auf das deutsche Schadensersatzrecht"

      43 최상필, "EU의 지적 재산권 시행지침" 한국인터넷법학회 3 (3): 2004

      44 Bodewig, "Die doppelte Lizenzgebühr als Berechnungsmethode im Lichte der Durchsetzungsrichtlinie"

      45 Pagenberg, "Die amerikanische Schadensersatzpraxis im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht - Mehrfacher Schadensersatz für Patentverletzungen als Modell für Europa?"

      46 Marcus Schönknecht, "Determination of Patent Damages in Germany"

      47 Tetzner, "Der Verletzerzuschlag bei der Lizenzanalogie"

      48 알로이즈 휘터만, "Damages in patent litigation in Germany and before the UPC" 법학연구원 문화.미디어.엔터테인먼트법연구소 9 (9): 101-116, 2015

      49 "BT-Dr 16/5048"

      50 Berlit, "Auswirkungen des Gesetzes zur Verbesserung der Durchsetzung von Rechten des geistigen Eigentums im Patentrecht"

      51 "ABlEU Nr. L 93 v. 31. 3. 2006, S. 12"

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2020 평가예정 계속평가 신청대상 (등재유지)
      2015-02-10 학술지명변경 외국어명 : Lawyers Association Journal -> Korean Lawyers Association Journal
      2015-01-01 평가 우수등재학술지 선정 (계속평가)
      2011-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2009-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2006-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2005-10-14 학술지명변경 외국어명 : 미등록 -> Lawyers Association Journal KCI등재후보
      2005-05-30 학술지등록 한글명 : 법조
      외국어명 : 미등록
      KCI등재후보
      2005-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2004-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2003-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 1.16 1.16 1.08
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      1.08 1.05 1.09 0.33
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼