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.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2008.6
- 수록면
- 1 - 23 (23page)
- DOI
- 10.34122/jip.2008.06.3.1.1
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This study examines the possibility of a licensee claiming invalidity of certain licensed patents in the Prinzip von Treu und Glauben (principle of trust and faith) and estoppel perspective, based on legal grounds of doctrines and judicial precedents. The results show that
invalidation trials not only simply arbitrate private persons"s interests, but also function as a process to nullify the right to a monopoly of
certain technology that should not have been given the right in the first place, the process thus fulfilling public interests. Therefore,
considering that enlarging the appropriateness scope of applicants as large as possible suits the purpose, it would be reasonable to
contradict the non-contestability duty in principle and recognize the non-contestability duty only in very exceptional situations. Such
exceptional situations may include where a special relationship is recognized with interested parties concluding a licensing agreement
through bilateral reconciliation and simultaneously agreeing to withdraw trial requests, and yet the case is subject to considerable violation of the principle of trust and faith. Next, since the legal validity of imposing the non-contestability duty on licensees has been much discussed in many countries including the matter of violation of the Antimonopoly Act, legal force of the Antimonopoly Act regarding the non-contestability duty in the United States, Japan, Korea and Europe is surveyed. Also, the U.S. judicial precedents, which have greatly influenced revisions of Antimonopoly Acts in other countries, are examined. The results show that although non-contestability agreement is basically valid in the principle of private autonomy perspective, such validity of the agreement is denied
accordingly when it violates good public order and customs or the Antimonopoly Act. That is, because there may be another interested party besides the licensee, the corresponding right may be attacked by a third party even if the licensee"s request for an invalidation trial is hindered. Thus, the non-contestability duty clause does not directly harm public interests. Also, the non-contestability duty clause may help amicably conclude a licensing agreement, thus facilitating use of rights. Therefore, the non-contestability duty should not necessarily be invalidated.
invalidation trials not only simply arbitrate private persons"s interests, but also function as a process to nullify the right to a monopoly of
certain technology that should not have been given the right in the first place, the process thus fulfilling public interests. Therefore,
considering that enlarging the appropriateness scope of applicants as large as possible suits the purpose, it would be reasonable to
contradict the non-contestability duty in principle and recognize the non-contestability duty only in very exceptional situations. Such
exceptional situations may include where a special relationship is recognized with interested parties concluding a licensing agreement
through bilateral reconciliation and simultaneously agreeing to withdraw trial requests, and yet the case is subject to considerable violation of the principle of trust and faith. Next, since the legal validity of imposing the non-contestability duty on licensees has been much discussed in many countries including the matter of violation of the Antimonopoly Act, legal force of the Antimonopoly Act regarding the non-contestability duty in the United States, Japan, Korea and Europe is surveyed. Also, the U.S. judicial precedents, which have greatly influenced revisions of Antimonopoly Acts in other countries, are examined. The results show that although non-contestability agreement is basically valid in the principle of private autonomy perspective, such validity of the agreement is denied
accordingly when it violates good public order and customs or the Antimonopoly Act. That is, because there may be another interested party besides the licensee, the corresponding right may be attacked by a third party even if the licensee"s request for an invalidation trial is hindered. Thus, the non-contestability duty clause does not directly harm public interests. Also, the non-contestability duty clause may help amicably conclude a licensing agreement, thus facilitating use of rights. Therefore, the non-contestability duty should not necessarily be invalidated.
목차
Ⅰ. 서언
Ⅱ. 부쟁의무의 의의 및 논거
Ⅲ. 부쟁조항의 법적 효력
Ⅳ. 결어
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
실시권자의 특허무효심판청구에 관한 소고
법학연구
2007 .12
-
상법상 이사의 충실의무에 관한 고찰
중앙법학
2012 .03
-
한국주식시장에서 대주주간 의결권대립 및 지배권 연합형성 가능성이 기업성과에 미치는 영향: 2대 대주주와 주식유동성을 중심으로
경영학연구
2019 .10
-
실시권자의 무효심판 청구적격에 관한 고찰
지식재산연구
2010 .06
-
근로계약상의 부수적 의무에 관한 고찰 : 영국, 독일, 미국을 중심으로
한양법학
2008 .10
-
공무원의 성실의무에 대한 재검토 - 충실의무(Treuepflicht)와의 관계를 중심으로 -
행정법연구
2020 .02
-
이사의 의무와 성실성
한양법학
2015 .02
-
Nondomination and Contestability : Machiavelli contra Nee-Roman Republicanism
한국정치학회보
2004 .12
-
미국 투자자문업법상 주의의무에 대한 법적 쟁점과 그 시사점 분석
경영법률
2014 .01
-
이사의 충실의무에 관한 고찰 －미국 판례법을 중심으로－
경영법률
2011 .01
-
일본의 공정대표의무론
노동법학
2013 .03
-
긴급구조의무와 나쁜 사마리아인법
비교형사법연구
2010 .01
-
이사회의 보수결정에 대한 미국법원의 사법심사와 이사의 성실의무
재산법연구
2009 .01
-
라이센서 파산시의 라이센시의 보호에 관한 연구 － 입법론적 고찰을 중심으로 －
경영법률
2010 .01
-
라이선시 금반언에 관한 미국 특허판례의 동향
경영법률
2008 .01
-
독일 보험계약법상 보험자 정보제공의무 등의 내용 분석과 그 도입가능성에 관한 비판적 검토
고려법학
2017 .01
-
디지털 시대에서의 약관편입- 대법원 2013.2.15. 선고 2011다69053 판결을 대상으로 -
고려법학
2016 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0