간행물

한국지식재산연구원> 지식재산논단

지식재산논단 update

  • : 한국지식재산연구원
  • : 사회과학분야  >  법학
  • :
  • :
  • : 연속간행물
  • : 반년간
  • : 1738-3471
  • :
  • :

수록정보
수록범위 : 1권1호(2004)~2권2호(2005) |수록논문 수 : 27
지식재산논단
2권2호(2005년 12월) 수록논문
최근 권호 논문
| | | |

1특허법 통일화의 이익과 이행방안

저자 : 이봉문 ( Lee Bong-mun )

발행기관 : 한국지식재산연구원 간행물 : 지식재산논단 2권 2호 발행 연도 : 2005 페이지 : pp. 3-59 (57 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

The international intellectual property arena, as it exists today, is a segmented potpourri of national patent systems that serve to inhibit the efficient and economical resolution of international patent issues. As the distances and differences between countries become smaller through emerging technology, the need for a truly global patent system becomes imperative as opposed to the fiercely nationalistic systems of today.
There have been many discussions on global patent law harmonization throughout the past one hundred years. Despite these efforts, global patent law harmonization has yet to be achieved. However, it is still important that the world continue to make an effort to globally harmonize patent law because the protection of intellectual property rights worldwide is critical to the international trading of goods and services as at some level nearly all legitimately traded goods and services operate under patent, copyright, or trademark protection.
Global harmonization of patent law is necessary for many reasons. One main reason is that because nations are transforming from industrial-based economies to information-based economies, worldwide uniform protection of intellectual property deeply affects trade issues. Another main reason is that patent law harmonization would evenly spread the administrative burden and redundancy present in prosecuting international patent applications among participating nations. Consequently, uniform patent laws would reduce the cost of prosecuting an international patent.
This Note will explore several aspects of international patent law while analyzing the benefits and implementation of a globally harmonized system of patent law. Part 11 will discuss important, multinational agreements in the history of international patent law. Part III will discuss aspects of current patent systems in the world and how some of these systems function as obstacles for globalizing patent law. Part IV will discuss the benefits of globally harmonizing patent law. Part V will provide globally harmonized patent law system and discuss its implementation and aspects.
Finally, Part VI will conclude this Note with a discussion of what the future may hold for the global harmonization of patent law.
It is obvious many obstacles need to be overcome before a globally harmonized patent system is put into place. The United States will play a large part in this, because, in order for there to be one global patent system, it likely needs to convert to the first-to-file system, used in the rest of the world. Recently the head of the U.S. Patent Office stated that he was prepared to reconsider the first-to-invent principle in the interest of securing a harmonized global system that would make it easier and cheaper for inventors to obtain patent protection worldwide. This would be a m에 or step in the quest for patent harmonization. It is unlikely that this step alone would transform the current state of international patent law into that of one unified system such as the WPS discussed earlier.
Developing countries will need to agree to harmonization laws as well, as these countries develop and become bigger contributors to the world's technology. It may be that a system with jurisdictional variation would be more suited for smaller countries. If this were the case, it would be impossible for the world to be productive using one unified system.
Whatever the case may be, it is apparent that world has been making strides for more than a century to come to some agreement on common patent law rules. However, these agreements have only begun the harmonization and have not changed the core principles to which individual nations adhere. To create an even, more uniform system, nations will most likely have to make compromises in how they perceive patent systems functioning. Only when these countries are willing to make these sacrifices will the world possibly see one globally harmonized patent law system.

2소프트웨어관련 특허 소고 - 일본의 이치타로사건을 중심으로 -

저자 : 고영수 ( 高栄洙 )

발행기관 : 한국지식재산연구원 간행물 : 지식재산논단 2권 2호 발행 연도 : 2005 페이지 : pp. 60-82 (23 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

日本では、2003年民事訴訟法が改正され、管轄集中と大合議裁判が可能となり、2004年には、知的財産高等裁判所設置法が制定され、2005年4月から施工されるようになった。最近日本ではソフトウェア特許関連の紛争事件が発生した。いわゆる「一太郎事件」である。本件は、日本で有名な日本語のワᅮドプロセッサ「一太郎」及び総合グラフィックソフトウェアの「花子」の製造·販売などを差止請求訴訟であった第1審判決に対する控訴審判決が下された。第1審である東京地方裁判所では、原告松下電器株式会社が勝訴したが、控訴審である知的財産高等裁判所において、これとは逆の判決が下され世間の注目を浴びた事件である。
本件は、今後発生するソフトウェア関連特許をめぐる侵害訴訟において少なからず影響を与えることが予想される。ここで、本稿において、第1審判決と知的財産高等裁判所の判決とを比較·検討した上で、本事件から得られた幾つかの論点を整理することにより、国內で同じ事件が生じた場合、どのような結論に下されるべきかその方向性を提示し、今後類似の訴訟に対処すべき理論的な根拠を備えることに目的がある。
ソフトウェア関連特許は、ハードウェアと連携して機能する特性を有するところ、ソフトウェアに関連してその特許性を判断するに当っては、当該発明の本質的な構成要素がなにかを先決問題として考慮したうえで、その本質的な構成要素がg然法則に該当するか否かにっいて判断すべきであることの必要性を認識させた事件であると評価できる。
また、ソフトウェア特許の場合には、新規性や進歩性の判断も重要な意味を持つものとして機能するという点である。特に、新規性の判断については、特許出願時点において、国內外における技術の存在如何までも判断しなければならないので、特許行政の観点からは、過大な行政負担とならざるを得ないし、発明家や企業にとっては、新規性の判断の地域的範囲が国内外に及ぶ点を考慮して、先行技術の調査の重要性も立証された事件ともいえる。
また、ソフトウェアとハードウェアとの相互連携性の特性から来る間接侵害の成立問題、侵害を成立させるための範囲設定の問題、範囲設定の拡大ないし縮小の問題について、今後論議が活発になる可能性があることを指摘したい。一つ留意すべきことは、間接侵害の適用範囲と関連して、その範囲を拡大するための侵害者の主観的要件の導入についての論議も十分に行われるべきであるが、主観的要件導入による保護範囲が拡大しすぎないように理論的な工夫も必要であると思われる。
最後に、本件を通して、ソフトウェア特許と関連しては、既存技術の組合せなどによる進歩性要件の判断を困難とさせる要素が内在しており、紛争の余地が多いということを考慮すると、今後続けてより根本的かつ慎重な議論を必要とする分野であると思われる。
では、幾つかの制度の在り方について議論していた。しかし、最終的には、既存の団体商標制度の枠組みを利用U地域団体商標という新しい制度を導入するかたちに落ち着いた^地域団体商標制度は、団体商標制度の法的構成を借用したこと、地域の名称を含む商標の登録要件を緩和したことの二つの点に特色がある。団体商標制度については、平成8年(西暦1996年)の法改正の際、地域の名称を要部とする商標を特別に認めるかどうか検討された経緯もある。その際、当初、1995年5月18日付けの工業所有権審議会商標問題検討小委員会報告書では、「団体商標について不登録事由中第3条1項3号の「産地」等に該当する表示であっても使用態様等を総合勘案して識別力がある場合には登録を認めることができるよう措置することとする」旨の答申がなされたが、同審議会の1995年12月13日付けの『商標法等の改正に関する答申』では、単に団体の出願であるからという理由のみで識別力の基準を緩和U識別力を容易に認めることは、商標法の原則に大きな変更をもたらすこととなり、認められないと結論している。今回の法改正は、こうした議論の存在を背景になされたものTある。そこで、以下では、平成8年(1996年)法改正の経緯をふまえ、団体商標制度における産地表示の保護について、団体商標制度の特質、パリ条約上の根拠、産地表示保護との関係や団体性から生じる問題点を概観した上で、今回の法改正で新たに導入されることになった地域団体商標制度の概要について説明する。

3미국 공공기술이전 법제의 평가

저자 : 임근영 ( Imm Keun-young )

발행기관 : 한국지식재산연구원 간행물 : 지식재산논단 2권 2호 발행 연도 : 2005 페이지 : pp. 83-121 (39 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

In the late 1970s, the United States had been losing its international competitiveness in manufacturing industry, and even in some industries such as technology innovation sectors, it began to lag behind Germany and Japan. It also faced challenges from newly industrializing countries(NICs) including Korea. The US aggressively tried to find a breakthrough to overcome the impasses, and one of the alternatives was to activate the commercialization of the public technology, resulting in the economic growth through technology innovation.
The US enacted two landmark legislations on technology transfer in 1980: Stevenson-Wydler Act and Bayh-Dole Act. These two legislations provide the unified p이icy on the ownership of patent rights in inventions made through federal government R&D activities. Bayh-Dole Act, in particular, is praised as a success in terms of exploitation of federal government-sponsored inventions. Inspired by the US success, some countries such as Japan try to do benchmarking of Bayh-Dole Act, and Korea is also jumping on the bandwagon.
However, the benchmarking of the legal system or policy of foreign country should be based on the thorough understanding on the legislations, for example, the background of enactment, effectiveness, and implication methods, etc. Therefore, this article reviews the positive as well as negative effect of the US legal system on public technology transfer after 20 years from the enactment and consolidation of techn이ogy transfer legislations, and it discusses the implications.

4한국 특허법원의 소개

저자 : 조용식 ( Yong-sig Cho )

발행기관 : 한국지식재산연구원 간행물 : 지식재산논단 2권 2호 발행 연도 : 2005 페이지 : pp. 122-161 (40 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

1998. 3. 1. 개원한 한국의 특허법원(特許法院)은 특허권, 실용신안권, 상표권, 디자인보호권에 대한 심판사건을 담당하는 전문법원으로서 고등법원급의 법원이다. 특허법원의 개원과 함께 종래의 특허청 항고심판소와 특허청 심판소를 통합하여 특허심판원(特許審判院)을 설치하였다.
특허법원은 여러 나라의 사법제도를 참고하여 만들어진 것으로서 독특한 성격을 가지고 있는데, 그 특징점을 살펴보면, 첫째는 특허 등 지적재산권 전문법원으로서 전국관할인 점, 둘째 독일의 기술판사(技術判事)제도와 일본의 조사관(調査官) 제도를 절충한 기술심리관(技術審理官)제도를 두고 있는 점 및 셋째, 그 전심으로서 심판소와 항고심판소를 통합하여 특허심판원을 설치하고 있는 점으로 요약할 수 있다.
우리나라의 특허법원의 소송물은 형식상으로는 특허심판원의 심결의 위법성이나 실질적으로는 등록요건의 존부로서, 특허심판원이 사실상의 제1심으로 기능하고 있고 특허법원소송이 실질적으로는 항소심의 성격을 띠고 있다.
특허법원소소에는 특허법이 우선 적용되나, 특허법에 규정이 없을 때는 특허법원소송이 민사소송적 성격과 행정소송적인 성격을 동시에 갖고 있어 민사소송법, 행정소송법이 준용된다. 특허법원 소송의 위와 같은 특성으로 인해 심리절차, 또는 특허법원 판결의 효력 등에 있어 독특한 점이 있다.
한국의 특허법원은 아직까지 그 역사가 짧고, 해결되지 아니한 많은 문제점을 갖고 있으나, 지적재산권에 관한 중심법원으로 확고한 위치를 점하고 있다.

5디자인보호법의 발전방향에 관한 소고

저자 : 이상정 ( Lee Sang Jeong )

발행기관 : 한국지식재산연구원 간행물 : 지식재산논단 2권 2호 발행 연도 : 2005 페이지 : pp. 162-195 (34 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

This is the study about how to revise our current design act. Our current design act consists of the substantial examination system(SES) and non-substantial examination system(NSES). From 1998 we have a dual system. We introduced the NSES for the short-term life cycled products.
The rights conferred through SES and NSES are same: monopolistic right. So many designs without qualification have exclusive rights. Those are hindering the development of design industry. It must be changed.
This paper propose the abolishment of dual system. But it does not mean to turn back to the pre-1998 system. It is out of date and inefficient for all designs to be examined substantially to be registered.
Even though all designs should be registered to gain the design right, it need not be examined whether it fulfills the substantial requirement. If only formal and procedural requirements are fulfilled, it could be registered. But before the right-h이der enforce the right it must be undergone substantial examination. So substantial examination is pre-requite for the enforcement. It must be based on the request of right holder. The time of the request for the examination must be limited like patent law. The nature of right from registration is monopolistic and the right has a block effect. This paper opposed the two-tier system: opposition to the adoption of unregistered design right system(UDRS). The major problem is the uncertainty. As [Australian Law Reform Report] says a manufacturer may be uncertain whether his or her product is so similar that it will be taken to be a copy. And in a sense we have already UDRS. It is in the Unfair Competition Law and Copyright Law. Not common-place design is protected from so-called dead copy by Unfair Competition Law, and copyright law protect some designs from copying. So there is no need to introduce the UDRS into the Design Protection Act itself.

6대법원 판례를 중심으로 한 기술적 표장의 판단기준에 관한 연구

저자 : 배상철 ( Sang-chul Bae )

발행기관 : 한국지식재산연구원 간행물 : 지식재산논단 2권 2호 발행 연도 : 2005 페이지 : pp. 196-245 (50 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

The mark is not registered because of descriptive mark on Trade Mark, if a specific mark represent quality, use, raw materials, etc.
On the other hand, the specific mark which seems to hint or emphasize quality of the designation goods is named suggestive mark. The boundry between descriptive mark and suggestive mark is ambiguous more or less. But the suggestive mark must be distinguished from the descriptive mark, because it can be registered.
Whether the specific marks have corresponded to the descriptive marks must consider both conception of mark and figure of that.
Therefore, this article tries to observe the judgement standards, centering around Precedents, for example judgement subject, degree, and method, etc. or whether it is described with commonly used methods in terms of judging the descriptive mark.

7중재(仲裁)에 의한 S/W분쟁 해결

저자 : 손승우 ( Son Seung-woo )

발행기관 : 한국지식재산연구원 간행물 : 지식재산논단 2권 2호 발행 연도 : 2005 페이지 : pp. 246-290 (45 pages)

다운로드

(기관인증 필요)

초록보기

The efficiency of arbitration on the S/W dispute resolution may alternatively reinforce the weakness of the litigation system that is the most common way to resolve the disputes of IT small & medium enterprises. Since arbitration is an economic and effective resolution method, it is important to vitalize an arbitration system specialized for the small size of disputes aroused from IT small & medium companies.
As S/W transactions grow more complex, it becomes increasingly important to resolve conflicts as quickly, efficiently, secretly, and by technological experts as possible. Although the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board provides an arbitration service as the only institute, it mainly deals with area of international commerce, construction, etc. Therefore, in order to vitalize arbitration in S/W disputes, it is required to consider the establishment of an independent IT arbitration organization or the extension of function of a S/W mediation committee.
Given the experiences and specialty of S/W mediation committee, and many obstructions in establishing a new organization, it is more effective way to adopt arbitration system by that. If a S/W mediation organization adopts arbitration, the current limitations of the mediation can overcome and the number of settlements are increased. It is also expected that the legal bottlenecks to small IT enterprises will be reduced. Moreover, the committee enables to provide various ADRs - e.g., by combining mediation with arbitration so called Med-Arb, or modifying the mediation system in order to increase binding force of mediation as the parties agree, prior to or in the meddle of mediation procedures, to bind a result.

1
권호별 보기

내가 찾은 최근 검색어

최근 열람 자료

맞춤 논문

보관함

내 보관함
공유한 보관함

1:1문의

닫기