Trials to confirm the scope of patents are the trials that a patentee, an exclusive licensee or an interested person demands to confirm whether the scope of a patent right includes an invention that is being carried out or is going to be carried out. Passive trials to confirm the scope of patents are to confirm that an invention does not fall in the scope of a patent. This article investigates the development of passive trials between patents and highlights the problems included in the cases in dealing with those trials. In addition this article tries to suggest solutions to the problems and propose amendment of Korean Patent Act. Decisions by the Korean Supreme Court on passive trials to confirm the scope of patents can be summarized as follows: ① Trial to confirm the scope of a patent against another patent is illegitimate in principle. ② Passive trial to confirm the scope of patents is legitimate because even though such trial is admitted, it does not result in invalidation of another patent. ③ Passive trial to confirm the scope of patents is legitimate because the claimant has risked the possibility of his patent to be invalidated. ④ The court can make a decision that denies the validity of the clamant's patent in a passive trial to confirm the scope of patents These judgements of the Supreme Court show that there are too many legitimate cases among trials to confirm the scope of a patent against another patent to rule that such trials are illegitimate 'basically'. According to the Supreme Court, all trials to confirm that a patent does not fall in the scope of another patent are legitimate. Examination of the development of the cases of the Supreme Court reveals that these recent cases do not harmonize with the early cases. Because atest decisions of the Supreme Court have become to be different from those of earlier ones, it is needed to clarify the definition of 'trials to confirm the scope of patents' and the legitimacy of passive trials between patents.
목차
I. 서론 II. 대법원 판례의 변천 1. 권리 대 권리의 소극적 권리범위확인심판의 부인 2. 권리 대 권리의 소극적 권리범위확인심판의 부분적 인정 3. 권리 대 권리의 소극적 권리범위확인심판의 전반적 인정 III. 대법원 판례에 대한 비판과 사례 검토 1. 대법원 판례에 대한 비판 2. 소극적 권리범위확인심판에 관한 사례 검토 3. 요약 IV. 결론 1. 결론 2. 제안(1) : 법원에 대한 제안 3. 제안(2) : 특허법 개정(안) 참고문헌
키워드
권리범위확인소극적 권리범위확인심판적극적 권리범위확인심판대법원이용관계이용발명Trial to confirm the scope of a patentPassive trials to confirm the scope of patentsActive trials to confirm the scope of patentsKorean Supreme Courtutilizing inventionutilizing relationship.
본 학회는 지식재산 및 관련 제도(특허, 실용신안, 상표, 디자인, 영업비밀, 저작권, 반도체칩, 컴퓨터프로그램, 데이터베이스, 디지털콘텐츠 등)에 관한 국내외 이론과 실무에 대한 연구를 촉진하여 지식재산분야의 학문간 융합발전과 국제적 유대를 강화하고, 지식재산에 관한 지식을 보급하여 인적 네트워크 구축과 정책제언을 추진하며 이를 통해 국가발전에 이바지하는 것을 목적으로 한다.