מۏࣄ
.
. 132
1. 132
2. 132 .
1. ( 132 )
2. 3 ( 344 )
. .
*
: 2016. 9. 29. / : 2016. 11. 21. / : 2016. 11. 30.
.
(2016. 3. 29. 14112 2016. 6. 30.
) 132
.
,
.
.
. ,
132 2 In Camera
,
.
. ,
3
. 132
344 3
.
. 132
. ,
,1)
2) . 2015. 2. 13. 19
13 ( 1913980)
,
3 ,
,
,
.
2016. 3. 3. ( 14112 )
,
132 , 128 2
.
1) ,
, , 2012, 146-160 .
2) , “ ( ) -
”, Issue & Focus on IP , , 2014, 5-7 21-22 .
. ,
.
1
. .
1 (
2 2 .
)
1 .
.
. 4
.
132
. ,
( + )
( )
( 1 ),
( 3 ),
( 4 , 5 ). , 3
,
.
, 132
105 ( ) .
132 In Camera ,
,3) 4)
.
105 .
3)
( , ( ),
, 2011, 1852 ).
4) , 224 (
) .
5) 344 1 3 . , 315 1 1 ; 344 2 1 , 1 3
. , 315 1 1 .
6) 344 1 3 . , 315 1 2 ; 344 2 1 , 1 3
. , 315 1 2 .
7) 344 2 2 .
8) 344 2 .
9) 132 1 .
10) 132 3 .
11) ‘ ’ ,
)
5)
) ( )
6)
) 7)
)
8)
-
9)
(
10))
In
Camera11) 347 4 132 2
In Camera
12)
163 :
224 3:
.
13)
105 4
224 3
, :
14)
-
15)
-
,
16)
224
132 4,
5
.
.
( )
3 .
,
.
( 1 ),
( 3 ). , )
, )
.
In Camera ( 2 ),
( 3 ),
,
12) 105 3 (“ 1
,
”).
13) 229 2: 5 5 .
14) 349 , 350 .
15) 132 4 .
16) 132 5 .
( 224 3),
( 229 2) 3
.
, ,
.17)
.
,
.
, ( )
,
, ,
, 3
. ,
.
.
(Discovery) .
17) , “ ”,
, , 2007, 70 .
132 “
” ,
“ ”
.
.
. ,
.
.
1999 105 “ ”
“ ” ,
,
.18)
( )
.19)
18) ,
, , 28(2016), 32 .
19) , 33 .
, 132
. ,
,
.20)
,
.
.21)
“ ,
,
,
”
20) , 2015. 2.
“ ૠ
(http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/titeki2/tyousakai/kensho_hyoka_kikaku/2016/syori_sys
tem/dai5/siryou3.pdf)” : 13 12 4 10
( )12225; 14 4 23 11( )12875; 16 5 31
15( )6117; 24 7 11 23( )28677; 25
7 16 23( )8221; 25 9 20 24( )6801 ;
25 10 24 24( )5743 .
21) , , 1852 ; , “
(4)”, (NBL) , No.692, 2000, 44 ; , “
- ”, NBL , No.116, 2006, 292 .
.22)
,
.
.23)
,24)
.25)
(Protective Order) .
, , ,
, .26)
In re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust
Litigation 27) .
,
. ,
22) 2016. 7. 1. 2014 2239 . 23) Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7).
24) United States v International Business Machines Corp, 67 F.R.D. 40, 20 FR Serv2d 227
(SD NY 1975). , ,
(Parsons v General Motors Corp, 85 F.R.D. 724, 29 FR Serv2d 175 (ND Ga 1980)).
25) In re Remington Arms Co, 952 F2d 1029, 21 FR Serv3d 1253 (8th Cir Mo 1991);
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp v Phosphate Engineering & Construction Co, 153
F.R.D. 686 (MD Fla 1994). , James R.
Mckown, “Discovery of Trade Secrets”, Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 35, 1994, p.50.
26) West Editorial Staffs, Discovery Proceedings in Federal Court, Thomson Reuter, 2016, Part . § 20:13; Murphy v. Kmart Corp., 255 F.R.D. 497 (D.S.D. 2009).
27) 162 F.R.D. 355 (D. Kan. 1995).
.
,
,
,
.
, ,
. ,
.
, ,
.
,
. , (NPE)
.
. ,
( ) ,28)
.
,29)
.30) ,
.31)
3 .
3 ,
3
.
.
28) , ,
,
(Peter Lee, “Substantive Claim Construction as a Patent Scope Lever”, Indiana Univ. Maurer School of Law IP Theory Vol.1, 2010, Iss.2, Art.5, p.114),
(Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, “Fence Posts or Sign Posts?
Rethinking Patent Claim Construction”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol.157:
1743, 2009, pp.1783-1789).
29) Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
30) West Editorial Staffs, op.cit., §20:8. , Lyeth v Chrysler Corp, 929 F2d 891(2nd Cir NY 1991).
31) 19 1 30 15( )23981.
.32) ,
,
,33)
.34) ,
.
, ,35) .
132 . 3
344 2
. 3 3
32) Apel v Murphy, 70 F.R.D. 651 (D RI 1976); Robertson v National Basketball Association, 622 F2d 34 (2nd Cir NY 1980); Ferguson v Schweiker, 90 F.R.D. 624, 31 FR Serv2d 1531 (WD Pa 1981); Rosin v New York Stock Exchange Inc, 484 F2d 179 (7th Cir Ill 1973) cert den 415 US 977 (1974); Eagle Industries Inc v Ransburg Corp, 124 F.R.D.
197 (SD Ind 1989).
33) , , 70 .
34) , , 72 .
35) , ( ), , 2000, 1195 .
. 3
. 3
, .
,
3 , , ,
,
36) 132
.37)
In Camera 1999
.38) 3
3
.39)
3 ,
132 2 In Camera
3 132 3
.
36) 9 5 20 9( )605.
37) , “ ”, ( ) , ,
2012, 843 .
38) , , “ 105 ”,
( 3 ) , , 2004, 199 .
39) 19 1 30 15( )23981 21 2 26
19( )10021.
.40) ,
,
.41) 42) “( )
,
” .
, ) “ ”
( 132 4 ), )
“ ”
( 5 ).
( 349 , 350 ),
.43)
40) 2008. 4. 14. 2007 725 .
41) , , , 69 .
42) 2015. 12. 21. 2015 4174 .
43) 132 5 (
224 3 ).
,
( 128 7 )
. , )
“ ”
,
(5,000 ) ,44) )
“ ”
,
1 ,45) )
,
1 2,000
46) . 2008. 12. 4. 2007 13469 ,
“
” ,
.
,47)
.48)
44) 2003. 2. 10. 2001 42518 ( ,
832,129,970 ).
45) 2006. 4. 28. 2005 4992 .
46) 2008. 6. 26. 2006 10475 .
47) 13 8 31 12( )8267; 15 2 27 11( )19329 .
.
132 5
,
. ,
. ,
,
. ,
,
. ,
“ ”
.
224 3 ( 132
5 ) ,
.49)
,
, 132
.
48) 21 1 28 20( )10054; 20 5 29 18
( )8725; 15 6 27 14( )19714; 14 1 31
11( )1759 .
49) , , 77 ; , , 1857 .
3
.
,
, In Camera
. ‘
( 128 )’ ,
.
132 3
, 3
. 3
.
50) 344 2 1 , 1 3 . , 315
1 2 , “
.
.
50) 2015. 12. 21. 2015 4174 .
,
, ,
” .
, 3
.
. , ) A
B A , C A
A
3 B C
, , ) A B
A
A 51) B
, ) A
B .
3 B C “ ”
( ) “ ”
. 3
( ) ,
.
51) A
.
.
,
. (3) , 3
. ,
,52)
53) .
54)
55) . ,56)
, ) ,
· ,
52) , “ ”, 17 1 ,
, 2013, 38 .
53) , “ - ”,
13 1 , , 2009, 261-262 .
54) , (5) 7 , , 2012, 427 .
55) , “ -
-”, 16 3 , , 2015, 302-303 .
56) 2016. 7. 1. 2014 2239 .
,
‘ ’
( ). )
,
( ).
,
.57) ,
. “ ”
“ ”
,
.
? 132 3
. ,
57) 344 1 3 . , 315 1 1 ; 344 2 1 ,
1 3 . , 315 1 1 .
.
( ) ,
132 .
132
.58)
,
. ,
, In Camera
.59) 60) “
,
” . ,
132 1 “ ,
” ,
58) , ‘
- (Attorney-Client Privilege)’
.
(Attorney-Client Privilege) ,
‘ (Work Product
Rule)’ .
Discovery
.
59) ,
( 317 ) 26
23 .
60) 2016. 7. 1. 2014 2239 .
“ ” “ ”
. ,
.
( 132 4, 5 ),
. -
“ ” “ ”
.61)
.62) ,
132 In Camera .
.
224 3 .
?
61) Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395-96 (1981);
§502(b).
62) , “ -
”, 20 3 , , 2010, 194 .
63)
. ,
.
,
. ,
.
.
132
, .
,
. 132
3 , “
” ,
.
( ,
) .64)
63) 2016. 7. 1. 2014 2239 . 64) Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(1).
, In Camera . 132
. In Camera
65)
( ) . ,
(
348 ),
.66)67) In Camera
,
,68)
( ),
( )
. In Camera
2004 105 3 ,
In Camera
.69)
, 132 2
65) In Camera 347 4 .
66) , “ : 19.11.30. 20.11.25
”, 53 3 , 2010, 10-11 .
67) 347 4
,
.
68) , [ ], 2005, 153 .
69) , “ ”, ,
, 2007, 82 . 105 3 : 1
, .
,
.70)
, 132
,
132 .
. ,
. ,
,
. ,
“ ” .
(
104 2)71) 2015
. . 1. (2) 1)
,
70) In Camera
, , “
”, 22 2 , , 2014, 234 .
71) “
. ,
.”
132
.
.
132
.
3 ,
. .
,
. )
, ) , )
, , ) 3
.
.
( 132 5 ) .
, 132 5
. 3
344 , 3
,
.
3 ,
.
,
. ,
. 132
, ) 3
, )
2 In Camera
, ) ( )
132 , )
‘
’ .
( )
, (5) 7 , ,
2012.
, “ -
”, 20 3 ,
, 2010.
, “ -
-”, 16 3 ,
, 2015.
, [ ], 2005.
,
, , 2012.
, “ ”, (
) , , 2012.
, “ ”,
17 1 , , 2013.
, “ ”, 22
2 , , 2014.
, “ -
”, 13 1 , ,
2009.
, “ ( ) -
”, Issue & Focus on IP , , 2014.
( )
, “ - ”,
NBL , No.116, 2006.
, “ ”,
, , 2007.
, “ ”,
, , 2007.
, “ : 19.11.30. 20.11.25
”,
53 3 , 2010.
, “ 105 ”,
( 3 ) , , 2004.
,
, , 28(2016).
, “ (4)”, (NBL
) , No.692, 2000.
, ( ), , 2000.
, ( ), , 2011.
( )
Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, “Fence Posts or Sign Posts? Rethinking Patent Claim Construction”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol.157: 1743, 2009.
James R. Mckown, “Discovery of Trade Secrets”, Santa Clara Computer &
High Tech. L.J. 35, 1994.
Peter Lee, “Substantive Claim Construction as a Patent Scope Lever”, Indiana Univ. Maurer School of Law IP Theory Vol.1, 2010.
West Editorial Staffs, Discovery Proceedings in Federal Court, Thomson Reuter, 2016.
( )
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/titeki2/tyousakai/kensho_hyoka_kikaku/2016/sy ori_system/dai5/siryou3.pdf
< >
2016. 6. 30. 132
. ,
. 132
,
.
5 .
,
, .
132 3
344 .
. ,
132 3
. ,
,
In Camera ,
( )
132 ,
.
Journal of Legislation Research / 51th Issue
A review on the rule of Submission Order in Korean Patent Act
Cho, Young-sun*72)
This article provides some perspectives of interpretation and suggestions of renovation for Art. 132 of Patent Act, which has been recently amended and come into force as of 30 June 2016. This paper reviews the history of Art.
132 and finds its status as a special rule of Civil Procedure Act. As Art.
132 principally preempts the ‘trade secret immunity’ in discovery process, it is essential to establish reasonable rule to balance party’s interest and keep procedural pertinence in submission order. This article proposes five practical elements to be considered for said order. With respect to the legal effect of defendant’s non-submission, the courts need to be more prudent in imposing statutory demerit of regarding plaintiff’s assertion true as such(Art. 132 (3)).
This article reasons aforementioned norm and reviews practice of courts in Korea and Japan on that issue. For the third party in the litigation, the rule to oblige document submission stems from Civil Procedure Act(Art. 344), other than Patent Act(Art. 132). According to Art. 344 of Civil Procedure Act, the party may object submission order for its trade secret. Hence, the reasonable standard to estimate pertinence of this objection shall be provided.
As Art. 132(3) mandates even parties to submit documents regardless of its nature of trade secret, the ‘Attorney’s Privilege Rule’ of Civil Procedure Act, which immunizes the attorney from coercive disclosure of client’s trade secret, may conflict with said Art 132(3). This author provides an aspect on that issue and presents possible interpretation of law. As for the renovation of Art. 132, this article suggests amendment to, expand court’s capability of discretion to protect trade secret in documentary submission order; allow parties to participate in In Camera procedure under certain conditions;
facilitate the defendant with counter claim to seek for submission order
* Korea University School of Law
Abstract
:
against plaintiff in order to collect evidence of patent invalidity or non-infringement; oblige the defendant arguing infringement to disclose its actual form of implementation.
