개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Patent invalidation procedures are different from country to country.
According to the Korean Patent Law, the only way of challenging a patent is an invalidation procedure. Any third party can file a request of invalidation against a granted patent within three months of the date of publication of the patent. After that, invalidation may be filed only by an interested party or a patent office examiner. Then, are licensees allowed to file a request of invalidation to challenge the patent right in Korea?
The Supreme Court decisions on this issue conflict with each other. While the Court allows licensees to contest the validity of patent in some cases, including 82 Hu 30, the Court denies licensees standing to challenge patent validity in other cases, such as 80 Hu 77. This problem should be solved either by the Supreme Court decision or by legislative action.
In the U.S., the Supreme Court waived the doctrine of licensee estoppel and opened the door to licensees to contest the validity of the licensed patent in Lear v. Adkins.
Japanese law relating to challenging patent validity changed on January I, 2004. Under the new system, except when challenging the inventorship of a patent, a challenger to patent validity need not have any specific interest in the matter.
It is no doubt that the purpose of the invalidation procedure is to prevent defective patents from being protected by the patent law. Licensees may often be the only individuals with enough economic incentive to challenge the patentability of a granted patent. If they are muzzled, the public may continually be required to pay tribute to would-be monopolists without need or justification. I think it plain that the doctrine of licensee estoppel must give way before the demands of the public interest.
For the same reason, any power of a licensor to withhold from a licensee freedom to contest the validity of the licensed patent should be denied.
According to the Korean Patent Law, the only way of challenging a patent is an invalidation procedure. Any third party can file a request of invalidation against a granted patent within three months of the date of publication of the patent. After that, invalidation may be filed only by an interested party or a patent office examiner. Then, are licensees allowed to file a request of invalidation to challenge the patent right in Korea?
The Supreme Court decisions on this issue conflict with each other. While the Court allows licensees to contest the validity of patent in some cases, including 82 Hu 30, the Court denies licensees standing to challenge patent validity in other cases, such as 80 Hu 77. This problem should be solved either by the Supreme Court decision or by legislative action.
In the U.S., the Supreme Court waived the doctrine of licensee estoppel and opened the door to licensees to contest the validity of the licensed patent in Lear v. Adkins.
Japanese law relating to challenging patent validity changed on January I, 2004. Under the new system, except when challenging the inventorship of a patent, a challenger to patent validity need not have any specific interest in the matter.
It is no doubt that the purpose of the invalidation procedure is to prevent defective patents from being protected by the patent law. Licensees may often be the only individuals with enough economic incentive to challenge the patentability of a granted patent. If they are muzzled, the public may continually be required to pay tribute to would-be monopolists without need or justification. I think it plain that the doctrine of licensee estoppel must give way before the demands of the public interest.
For the same reason, any power of a licensor to withhold from a licensee freedom to contest the validity of the licensed patent should be denied.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 특허무효심판을 청구할 수 있는 자
Ⅲ. 관련문제
Ⅳ. 결론
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
일본에서 특허의 유효성에 대한 중재가능성-킬비 판결(일본 특허법 제104조의3)을 중심으로-
중재연구
2011 .01
-
권리범위확인심판에서의 진보성결여에 근거한 특허무효 및 특허권남용 판단에 관한 비판적 고찰 : 특허법원 2009.2.18.선고 2008허3889판결의 분석을 중심으로
기업법연구
2011 .03
-
특허소송제도와 활성화에 관한 검토
법과정책
2018 .01
-
국내 및 해외 특허 분석 시스템 개발 동향에 대한 연구
한국경영과학회 학술대회논문집
2011 .05
-
특허권 남용에 관한 연구
경영법률
2013 .01
-
특허의 경제적 수명의 결정요인에 관한 연구 : 갱신자료를 활용한 생존분석
지식경영연구
2010 .01
-
특허 분쟁리스크 예측모델 개발연구
기업경영연구
2017 .01
-
기업의 보유 특허 특성과 경제적 활용 가능성에 대한 연구-의료화학산업 특허를 중심으로
지식경영연구
2013 .01
-
취소판결에 따른 특허무효심판에서의 정정청구
지식재산연구
2012 .06
-
기업의 특허 역량이 성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 실증 분석 : 우수 벤처기업을 중심으로
지식경영연구
2010 .01
-
실시권자의 무효심판 청구적격에 관한 고찰
지식재산연구
2010 .06
-
특허 분석을 위한 알고리즘에 관한 연구
한국경영과학회 학술대회논문집
2011 .05
-
특허분쟁이 기업의 향후 혁신 활동에 미치는 영향
지식경영연구
2020 .01
-
KCAB’s Arbitration of U.S. Patent Exhaustion Disputes Over Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things Technologies
중재연구
2018 .01
-
지식흐름과 기술혁신에 있어서 특허정보의 역할
과학기술법연구
2011 .01
-
Patent Analysis in Assessing Supply Chain Management Innovation
인터넷전자상거래연구
2014 .05
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-360-002131071