• 검색 결과가 없습니다.

Schankerman, “How Valuable is Patent Protection? Estimates by Technology Field”, 29 RAND J

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "Schankerman, “How Valuable is Patent Protection? Estimates by Technology Field”, 29 RAND J"

Copied!
40
0
0

로드 중.... (전체 텍스트 보기)

전체 글

(1)

*

. . 1.

2.

. 1.

2.

3.

. 1.

2.

V.

* 2013. 4. 18. ‘IT

’ .

** , , .

: 2013. 4. 25 / : 2013. 5. 30 / : 2013. 6. 4

(2)

I.

.

.

.

,

.

, , (Lead Time),

,

.

1)

,

5 10%, 15

35% .

2)

,

15 25%

.

3)

,

1) Wesley M. Cohen et al., “Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. Manufacturing firms patent (or Not)”, NBER Working Paper, No. 7552 (2000)

.

2) Mark A. Schankerman, “How Valuable is Patent Protection? Estimates by Technology Field”, 29 RAND J. Econ. 77, 79 (1998).

3) Id.

(3)

,

.

4)

, (Business Model),

(Research Tool)

(incremental) (cumulative)

.

5)

.

,

.

.

126 1 “

” , 2

“ 1

(

) ,

” .

4) Bronwyn H. Hall & Rosemarie H. Ziedonis, “The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical study of Patenting in the U.S. Semi-conductor Industry”, 1975-1995, 32 RAND J. Econ.

101 (2001) .

5) Nancy T. Gallini, “The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform”, 16 J. Econ. Persp. 131 (2002) .

(4)

126 1 2

, 1

.

6)

2 .

126 2 ‘ ’

.

,

.

, .

7)

,

.

96 ‘

’ (

103 , 104 )

. , ,

( 107 ). ,

.

‘ ’

8)

6) , , 3 , , 2007, 792 .

7) 3 , , , 1989, 403 ; 6 ,

( ), 2 , , 2013, 657 .

8) 1983. 7. 26. 81 56 ( ), 1998. 10. 27.

(5)

‘ ’

9)

. , ‘

’ .

10)

.

11)

, .

.

97 2095 ( ), 2000. 11. 10. 2000 1283 ( ),

2009. 9. 24. 2007 2827 ( ), 2002. 6. 14. 2000 235

( ), 2001. 12. 27. 99 1973 ( ) .

9) 2001. 10. 30. 99 710 , 2004. 9. 23. 2002 60610 ,

2006. 5. 25. 2005 4341 .

10) 2004. 10. 28. 2000 69194 , 2008. 5. 15. 2008 11832

( ), 2005. 1. 25. 2003 8802 ( ),

2007. 11. 21. 2007 5620 ( ), 2007.

12. 27. 2004 104106 ( ), 2008. 1. 22. 2006

14466 ( ), 2008. 4. 17. 2007 91423 ( ),

2008. 6. 20. 2007 56031 ( ), 2008. 7.

11. 2006 67744 ( ), 2008. 2. 12. 2007

997 ( ) .

11) 2012. 1. 19. 2010 95390 .

(6)

.

‘ ’( 300

2 ) ,

‘ ’ . ,

‘ ’ .

’ ‘ ’ .

. ,

.

.

“ 300 2

, ,

” ,

12)

” .

13)

12) 1993. 2. 12. 92 40563 , 2003. 11. 28. 2003 30265 , 2007. 6. 4. 2006 907 .

(7)

,

14)

, ,

15)

16)

. ,

.

17)

,

, ,

,

, ,

,

.

( 301 , 281 2 ),

( 301 , 283 3 ).

( 309 1 ).

13) 1993. 2. 12. 92 40563 , 2003. 11. 28. 2003 30265 , 2007. 6. 4. 2006 907 .

14) 1993. 2. 12. 92 40563 , 1994. 11. 10. 93 2022 ,

2003. 11. 28. 2003 30265 , 2007. 6. 4. 2006 907 . 15) 1994. 11. 10. 93 2022 .

16) 2005. 8. 19. 2003 482 .

17) 1984( 59). 12. 21. 59( )1473 .

(8)

.

.

,

.

18)

,

19)

, .

20)

2002 1 26 6626 (2002.7.1.

) 309 1 “

,

,

,

,

” .

18) 1995. 3. 6. 95 2 .

19) ‘ , “

”, 9 10 , , 1968. 10, 43 ; ,

“ ”, 496 , , 1998. 1, 155-157 ’ .

20) 1995. 3. 6. 95 2 ( : ); 1996. 4.

24. 96 5 ( : ).

(9)

.

21)

. “

,

” .

22)

( )’ ‘ ’

,

’ .

23)

‘ ’ ,

‘ ’ .

126 1

2

. ‘ , ’

,

‘ ’ , ‘

’ .

21) , “ ”, 28 , , 1997

( ), 191-192, 207-208 ; , , 6 , , 2013, 636-637 .

22) 2002. 5. 8. 2002 31 ( : );

‘ , “ : ”,

3 , , 2006. 1, 615-621 .’

23) , “ ”, 46 , , 1989. 9, 88 ; ,

( 21), 191-192, 207-208 ; , ( 21), 37 .

(10)

126 2 ‘

, ’ ,

. ,

,

24)

.

25)

‘ ’

‘ , ’

,

.

,

. , ,

,

.

26)

) ( 301

24) 1995. 3. 6. 95 2 ( : ); 1996. 4.

24. 96 5 ( : ).

25) 2002. 5. 8. 2002 31 ( : ).

26) ‘ , ( 22), 619-621 ’.

(11)

, 287 1 3 , 288 1 3 ), ) (

301 , 288 1 3 ) )

( 307 ) .

.

, .

27)

( 309 )

( 310 ).

. 3

(

301 1 3 , 288 1 ).

28)

,

,

.

29)

( 301 ),

27) 1961. 11. 23. 4293 134 , 1982. 3. 23. 81 1041 .

28) 2012. 1. 27. 2010 1987 .

29) 1960. 5. 26. 4291 63 , 1959( 34). 3. 23. 33

( ) 303 , 1967( 42). 6. 14. 41( )137 , 1970

( 45). 3. 31. 44( )1213 .

(12)

287 288

. 307

‘ ’

. ,

.

30)

‘ ’

,

( )

( , ).

31)

.

32)

,

” .

33)

.

34)

30) , ( 21), 567 .

31) 1987. 1. 20. 86 1547 , 1992. 4. 14. 91 31210 ,

1997. 3. 14. 96 21188 .

32) 1967. 1. 24. 66 2127 .

33) 1981. 1. 13. 80 1334 .

34) , “ ”, 8 , , 2004. 2, 420 ;

, ( 21), 640 .

(13)

, ,

.

35)

,

.

.

‘ ’ ‘ ’

‘ ’ .

, ( )

,

, .

36)

, ,

37) 38)

. ,

,

.

39)

35) 1955( 30). 7. 12. 30( )2165 , 1963( 38). 9. 12. 36( )

2685 , 1966( 41). 10. 21. 41( )321 , 1984( 59). 8. 30.

59( )2765 , 1990( 2). 2. 16. ( )7011 , 1992( 4).

7. 31. 3( )1205 .

36) 1992. 4. 14. 91 31210 . 37) 1955( 30). 7. 12. 30( )2165 . 38) 1963( 38). 7. 27. 38( )3197 .

(14)

’ ‘ ’

.

IV.

‘ (Property

rule)’ . ,

.

.

, ‘

(Liability rule)’

.

40)

2006 eBay

41)

(Permanent Injunction)

39) 1963( 38). 9. 19. 36( )1889 , 1984( 59). 9. 20. 59( ) 2907 .

40)

‘ , “

”, 29 , , 2009. 5, 399-433 ’ .

41) eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006).

(15)

4 )

(Irreparable Harm),

) (Adequate Remedy), )

(Balance of Hardships) )

(Public Interest) .

42)

. ,

) ( )

, )

,

,

, ) 100

.

43)

42) 2006 eBay

(Preliminary Injunction) ,

(Permanent Injunction)

(KSM Fastening Sys., Inc. v.

H.A. Jones Co., 776 F.2d 1522, 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1985); W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v.

Garlock, Inc., 842 F.2d 1275, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ); eBay

, (International Trade Commission, ITC)

. ITC (exclusion order)

4 (Public Interest)

(Colleen V. Chien & Mark A.

Lemley, “Patent Holdup, The ITC, and the Public Interest”, 98 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (2012) ).

43) , “eBay -

”, 57 2 , , 2007. 2, 191 .

(16)

2012.12.11.

(Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, Council doc. 16351/12)

63 , 64

(Corrective Measures) ,

. 64 4 ,

(Proportionality),

3 .

.

‘ ’

‘ ’

. , ‘

126 1 2 ,

,

,

’ .

. eBay

,

. “

(17)

, ” .

44)

.

,

.

,

‘ ’

26 4

.

,

.

,

” .

45)

, ,

,

” .

46)

44) eBay, 547 U.S. at 393.

45) 1984( 59). 12. 21. 59( )1473 . 46) 1994. 11. 10. 93 2022 .

(18)

‘ ’

‘ ’

.

‘ ’ ‘ ’

.

,

” .

47)

‘ ’

( 307 ) .

” .

48)

, ”

.

49)

” , “

” .

50)

,

47) 1984( 59). 12. 21. 59( )1473 .

48) 1981. 1. 13. 80 1334 .

49) 1955( 30). 7. 12. 30( )2165 .

50) 1963( 38). 9. 12. 36( )2685 , 1984( 59). 8. 30. 59( )

(19)

,

” ,

51)

100 ( 126 )

, “ ,

,

” .

52)

. 1982

(Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ‘CAFC’)

‘ ’

.

53)

,

.

54)

, CAFC

2765 .

51) 1990( 2). 2. 16. ( )7011 . 52) 1992( 4). 7. 31. 3( )1205 .

53) Foundry Services, Inc. v. Beneflux Corp., 206 F.2d 214, 216 (2d Cir. 1953); Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. Federal Power Comm., 104 U.S.App.D.C. 106, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958); Tele-Controls, Inc. v. Ford Industries, Inc., 388 F.2d 48, 50 (7th Cir. 1967); Nuclear-Chicago Corp. v. Nuclear Data, Inc., 465 F.2d 428, 430 (7th Cir.

1972); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 525 F.Supp. 1298, 1307 (D. Del. 1981);

Jenn-Air Corp. v. Modem Maid Co., 499 F.Supp. 320, 333 (D. Del.), aff'd. 659 F.2d 1068 (3d Cir. 1981).

54) Herbert F. Schwartz, “Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases”, 50 ALB. L. Rev. 565, 567-68 (1986).

(20)

. , 1983 Smith v. Hughes Tool

55)

.

56)

eBay

57)

CAFC

. ,

. ,

. 2006 eBay Smith & Nephew v.

Synthes (U.S.A.)

.

58)

,

.

.

.

55) Smith Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 718 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

56) Roper Corp. v. Litton Systems, Inc., 757 F.2d 1266, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 1985); H.H.

Robertson, Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc., 820 F.2d 384, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Canon Computer Sys., Inc. V. Nu-Kote Intern., Inc., 134 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

57) eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006).

58) Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Synthes (U.S.A.), 466 F.Supp.2d 978, 983-84 (W.D. Tenn.

2006).

(21)

. eBay

, , , ,

.

59)

. ‘

’ ,

.

60)

,

‘ ’

,

.

61)

.

62)

.

59) MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 500 F.Supp.2d 556, 569-70 (E.D. Va. 2007).

60) Id. at 573.

61) Id. at 573 n.13.

62) Id. at 571-72.

(22)

(Hold-up ).

.

63)

v. CAFC

.

64)

,

,

.

65)

, , ,

( )

,

63) eBay, 547 U.S. at 396; z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 434 F.Supp.2d 437, 441-42 (E.D. Tex. 2006) .

64) Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

65) , , , 2005, 226-228, 266-268 ; ,

“ ”, LAW&TECHNOLOGY 1 2 ,

, 2005. 9, 33-34 ; , “

”, 40 , , 2005. 9, 19 ; , “

- 128 1 -”, 80 ,

, 2004. 8, 131-132 .

(23)

,

, , ”

.

66)

.

,

.

(Patent Thicket) .

,

.

. , ,

,

. , IT

BT

, .

, ,

66) 2004. 6. 11. 2002 18244 .

(24)

,

. ,

‘ ’

.

.

eBay “

,

67)

” .

68)

69)

,

” .

.

, , ,

,

‘ ’ .

,

.

.

67) eBay, 500 F.Supp.2d at 574.

68) Id. at 574-75.

69) 2003. 3. 24. 2002 3054 .

(25)

,

.

.

,

. ,

, ,

(FRAND Fair Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) .

70)

CAFC (Wang) SIMM(Single In-Line

Memory Module) SIMM

(Mitsubishi) (Doctrine of Estoppel)

.

71)

,

, ,

.

,

70) , “ ”, 21 59 , , 2000. 3,

142 ; , “

”, 16 , , 2004. 11, 401 .

71) Wang Laboratories, Inc, v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc., 103 F.3d 1571 (Fed.

Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 69 (1997).

(26)

.

72)

2006 eBay “

” ,

73)

.

74)

, .

75)

.

,

, .

76)

72) James Ratliff & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, “The Use and Threat of Injunctions in the RAND Context”, 9 J. Competition L. & Econ. 1, 20-21 (2013); Brief of AMICUS CURIAE Federal Trade Commission Supporting Neither Party, Apple v. Motorola (Fed. Cir. Dec.

14, 2012) .

73) Visto Corp. v. Seven Networks, Inc., 2006 WL 3741891, *4 (E.D. Tex. 2006); Voda v.

Cordis Corp., 2006 WL 2570614, *5 (W.D. Okla. 2006); Paice L.L.C. v. Toyota Motor Corporation, 2006 WL 2385139, *4 (E.D. Tex. 2006), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

74) TiVo Inc. v. Echostar Communications Corp., 446 F.Supp.2d 664, 669 (E.D. Tex. 2006);

Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Globalsantafe Corp., 2006 WL 3813778,

*3 (S.D. Tex. 2006); Black & Decker Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., 2006 WL 3446144, *4 (N.D. Ill. 2006); Wald v. Mudhopper Oilfield Servs., 2006 WL 2128851,

*5 (W.D. Okla. 2006).

75) Rebecca A. Hand, “Ebay v. MercExchange: Looking at the Cause and Effect of a Shift in the Standard for Issuing Patent Injunctions”, 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 461, 481-84 (2007).

(27)

. ,

. , ,

,

.

77)

.

, .

CAFC 1934 Activated Sludge “

.

78)

, 1995 Rite-Hite v. Kelley

Activated Sludge “

76) z4 Techs, 434 F.Supp.2d at 440-41.

77) Commonwealth Scientific and Indus. Research Org. v. Buffalo Tech., Inc., 492 F.Supp.2d 600, 604 (E.D. Tex. 2007).

78) City of Milwaukee v. Activated Sludge, Inc., 69 F.2d 577, 593 (7th Cir. 1934).

(28)

” .

79)

Cordis v. Boston Scientific

Activated Sludge “

” .

80)

, 2006

eBay

CAFC

, (public health)

.

eBay z4 “ , Microsoft

” .

81)

eBay

” .

82)

,

2006 eBay ‘ ’

,

83)

eBay ‘ ’

, ,

,

.

84)

)

,

85)

)

86)

) ,

79) Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1547-48 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

80) Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 99 F. App'x 928, 935 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

81) z4 Techs, 434 F.Supp.2d at 443-44.

82) eBay, 500 F.Supp.2d at 587.

83) Cordis, 99 F. App'x at 935.

84) eBay, 500 F.Supp.2d at 587-88.

85) Rite-Hite, 56 F.3d at 1547.

86) Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 106 F.Supp.2d 696, 697, 705 (D.N.J. 2000).

(29)

87)

.

‘ ’

.

88)

” ‘ ’ .

89)

‘ ’ ‘

(Balance of Hardships)’ .

,

,

” .

90)

,

, ,

1% ,

87) Activated Sludge, 69 F.2d at 593; Roche Prods., Inc. v. Bolar Pharm. Co., 733 F.2d 858, 865-66 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Datascope Corp. v. Kontron, Inc., 786 F.2d 398, 401 (Fed. Cir.

1986).

88) , “ ”, ,

, , 1988, 618 ; , ( 23), 100 ; ,

( 21), 537 .

89) 1994. 11. 10. 93 2022 , 2003. 11. 28. 2003 30265 . 90) 1984( 59). 12. 21. 59( )1473 .

(30)

.

91)

z4 “ Microsoft

XP ,

Microsoft

” .

92)

,

,

‘ ’ .

, , ,

, ,

, ,

.

‘ ’

. ‘ 126 1 2

, 128

,

’ . ,

.

91) 1984( 59). 9. 20. 59( )2907 . 92) z4 Techs, 434 F.Supp.2d at 442-43.

(31)

EU

93)

12

,

(Alternative Measures)

. ,

.

.

.

.

, .

, .

93) Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights [OJ L 195, 02.06.2004].

(32)

, .

‘ 126 1 2

,

’ .

.

. eBay

(Compulsory License) .

,

, .

z4 Microsoft

, z4 .

94) Voda v. Cordis

7.5%

.

95)

94) z4 Techs, 434 F.Supp.2d at 444-45.

95) Voda v. Cordis Corp., 2006 WL 2570614, *6, *1 (W.D. Okla. 2006).

(33)

, Finisar v. DirecTV

96)

,

$1.60 .

97)

Toyota (hybrid)

Paice v. Toyota 1

, Toyota

$25 .

98)

.

99)

CAFC

,

.

100)

, $25

.

101)

V.

96) Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 2006 WL 2037617 (E.D. Tex. 2006), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 523 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

97) ,

(DirecTV, 523 F.3d at 1339).

98) Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2006 WL 2385139, *6 (E.D. Tex. 2006), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 504 F.3d 1293, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

99) Toyota, 504 F.3d at 1315.

100) Id.

101) Id. at 1314-15.

(34)

. ,

,

.

.

,

.

102)

,

, IT

.

.

, ‘ ’ ‘ ’

. ‘ ’

‘ , ,

, ,

, ,

.

102) ‘ ’ (overuse) ‘

(tragedy of commons) ,

(underuse)

(Michael A. Heller, “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets”, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 621, 623 (1998) ).

(35)

‘ ’

. ,

,

.

,

.

.

.

.

, ,

.

(36)

, “ ”, 496 , , 1998. 1.

, “ ”, 46 , , 1989. 9.

, “ : ”,

3 , , 2006. 1.

, “ ”, 8 , , 2004. 2.

, “ ”, ,

, , 1988.

, “ ”,

40 , , 2005. 9.

, “ ”, 21 59 , ,

2000. 3.

3 , , , 1989.

, “ ”, LAW&TECHNOLOGY

1 2 , , 2005. 9.

, “ ”, 9 10 , ,

1968. 10.

, “ ”, 28 ,

, 1997 ( ).

6 , ( ), 2 , , 2013.

, “

”, 29 , , 2009. 5.

, , , 2005.

, “

”, 16 , , 2004. 11.

, “ - 128 1

-”, 80 , , 2004. 8.

, , 3 , , 2007.

, , 6 , , 2013.

(37)

, “eBay -

”, 57 2 , ,

2007. 2.

Chien, Colleen V. & Mark A. Lemley, “Patent Holdup, The ITC, and the Public Interest”, 98 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (2012).

Cohen, Wesley M. et al., “Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. Manufacturing firms patent (or Not)”, NBER Working Paper, No. 7552 (2000).

Gallini, Nancy T., “The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform”, 16 J. Econ. Persp. 131 (2002).

Hall, Bronwyn H. & Rosemarie H. Ziedonis, “The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical study of Patenting in the U.S. Semi-conductor Industry”, 1975-1995, 32 RAND J. Econ. 101 (2001).

Hand, Rebecca A., “Ebay v. MercExchange: Looking at the Cause and Effect of a Shift in the Standard for Issuing Patent Injunctions”, 25 Cardozo Arts

& Ent. L. J. 461 (2007).

Heller, Michael A., “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets”, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 621 (1998).

Schankerman, Mark A., “How Valuable is Patent Protection? Estimates by Technology Field”, 29 RAND J. Econ. 77 (1998).

Schwartz, Herbert F., “Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases”, 50 ALB. L. Rev. 565

(1986).

(38)

< >

.

.

.

. , ‘

’ ‘ ’ ‘ ’

. ‘

’ ‘ ,

, ,

, , ,

’ .

.

.

.

.

(39)

Abstract

Need for New Criteria of an Injunction in a Patent Infringement

Shim, Mi-Rang

*103)

The current patent system is more often used for defensive purposes to exclude others' use or as a means to hold unfair strong positions in negotiations rather than for the original purpose as the dissemination and active use of useful technology.

An injunction together with a damage is an important remedy for patent infringements. However, unlike a claim for damages, injunctions do not require the subjective requirement of intent and negligence or the occurrence of loss. If the validity of the patent and the fact of infringement are confirmed, automatically injunctions are issued without consideration of other circumstances. So a patent holder would exclude others' use and have a powerful position in negotiations because of injunctions for patent infringements.

Therefore, those injunctions for patent infringements should be flexibly restricted according to cases under the premise to ensure fair compensation for the patent owner, rather than absolutely admitting injunctions for patent infringements like now. If then, it would serve the use of a useful technology and industrial development as the purpose of the patent system.

First of all, judgments for preliminary injunctions should be strict and by deliberate decision on the merits permanent injunctions should be determined. In addition, it is needed that court's discretion possible to considerate 'the need for an injunction'. When the courts judge 'the need for an injunction', 'whether a patent holder has implemented a patent invention, the possibility of monetary compensation and the ability of the infringer for damages, a patent holder's intent to license and whether an injunction has been used as a weapon of negotiation, the proportion of patent technology in the entire products, the characteristics of patent technology and the possibility of patent invalidity, the competitive relationship for market share, the public interests and gains and losses between

* Associate Research Fellow of Korea Institute of Intellectual Property, Ph.D in Law

(40)

Journal of Legislation Research / 44th Issue

:

the parties and so on' should be considered. After these judgements, if 'the need

for an injunction' is not approved, a patent owner would be protected by

post-monetary compensation. However, because damages are related to illegal

conducts in the past, in the case that an injunction is restrained, measures to ensure

the legal implementation in the future are needed. It is primarily desirable that

reasonable royalty is estimated throughout private negotiations between parties,

but if agreement between the parties does not occur, patent owner should be able

to claim the royalty for future.

참조

관련 문서

Common corporate digital crimes include piracy, financial fraud, espionage, and theft of services.. _______________________________________ such as

Nonetheless, allowing for a patent premium in the speci…cation of the market value equation has almost no e¤ect on the other coe¢ cients in the model –in particular, the coe¢

We need to move away from the discussions over BM patent from the perspective of intellectual property to discussing how competition policy should be

Necessary arrangements shall be made between the European Union and the EPO to make machine translations of patent applications and patent specifications available in all

Since every classical or virtual knot is equivalent to the unknot via a sequence of the extended Reidmeister moves together with the forbidden moves, illustrated in Section 2,

웹 표준을 지원하는 플랫폼에서 큰 수정없이 실행 가능함 패키징을 통해 다양한 기기를 위한 앱을 작성할 수 있음 네이티브 앱과

_____ culture appears to be attractive (도시의) to the

In the 1980s, technology corporations in the United States and Japan engaged in a patent war, creating a scenario where companies were forced to &#34;fight patent