Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=206189 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.206189

. . 1.

2.

3.

. 1.

2.

. 1.

2.

3. ( )

.

*

: 2012. 4. 28 / : 2012. 6. 18 / : 2012. 6. 22

I.

.

. .

.¹⁾ .

.²⁾ .³⁾

1) . Bessen,

James E. and Maskin, Eric S., Sequential Innovation, Patents, And Imitation (January 2000). MIT Dept. of Economics Working Paper No. 00-01. Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=206189 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.206189 ( , Bessen, James E. and Maskin, Eric S., Sequential Innovation, Patents, And Imitation); Suzanne Scotchmer, Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law, The Journal of Economic Perspectives , Vol. 5, No. 1 (Winter, 1991) ( , Suzanne Scotchmer, Standing on the Shoulders of Giants), pp. 29-41. Published by: American

Economic Association; , , ,

2006. 208 .

2) Michael A. Carrier, Cabining Intellectual Property through a Property Paradigm, 54 Duke L.J. 1 (2004); Llobet, Gerard, Hopenhayn, Hugo A. and Mitchell, Matthew F., Rewarding Sequential Innovators: Prizes, Patents and Buyouts (September 2000). CEMFI Working Paper No. 0012. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=257591 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.257591; Philip G. Pardey, Bonwoo Koo & Carol Nottenburg, Creating, Protecting, and Using Crop Biotechnologies Worldwide in an Era of Intellectual Property, 6 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 213 (2004) at 218-219; Bessen, James E. and Maskin, Eric S., Sequential Innovation, Patents, And Imitation.

3) Robert P. Merges, Rent Control in the Patent District: Observations on the Grady- Alexander Thesis, 78 Va. L. Rev. 359, 373 n.54 (1992).

.

.⁴⁾

.

.

.⁵⁾

“ ” .⁶⁾

.

.

(73 47, 83 107, 84 5, 83 105, 84 6)

4) Jonathan M. Barnett, Property As Process: How Innovation Markets Select Innovation Regimes, 119 Yale L.J. 384, at 406-407.

5) . Ian Ayres and Eric

Talley, Solomonic Bargaining: Dividing a Legal Entitlement to Facilitate Coasean Trade, 104 Yale L.J. 1027; Robert P. Merges, Of Property Rules, Coase, and Intellectual Property, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 2655; Robert P. Merges and Richard R. Nelson, On the Complex Economicx EcoPatent nd pe, Columbia Law Review May5; Ro0 (o0 Colum. L.

Rev. 839); Reichman, Jerome H. Oconreen Tulips and Legal Kudzu: Repackaging Rights in Se,patentable Innovation, Vanderbilt Law Review [94 Col3:6:1743, 2000], Oxcord Univlexity Press; Kaplow, Louis. and Steven Shavell, Property Rules Versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis, 109 Harv. L. Rev. 713, 716 (1996); William Kingston (ed), Direct Protection of Innovation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987.

6) Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anti-commons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698, (May 1, 1998), Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=121288; Bradley J. Levang, Evaluating the Use of Patent Pools For Biotechnology: A Refutation to the USPTO White Paper Concerning Biotechnology Patent Pools, 19 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 229 (2002) at 234-235; Michael S. Mireles, An Examinaton of patents, Licensing, Research Tools, and the Tragedy of the Anticommons in Biotechnology Innovation, 38U. Mich. J.L. Reform 141 (2004).

.⁷⁾

2002 99 2433 “

,

” .⁸⁾ , 2002 99 2433

.

‘ ’

.⁹⁾

1. (1)

, (2) , (3)

.

‘ ’

?

2. 98 ,

10)

7) 1976. 11. 23. 73 47 ; 1984.5.15. 83 107 ;

1985. 5. 28. 84 5 ; 1984. 05. 29 83 105 ; 1986.

03. 25 84 6 .

8) 2002. 6. 28. 99 2433 ; 2007.10.5.

2007 647 : ( ); 2004. 3. 25. 2003 2270

( ).

9)

.

.

10) Bessen, James E. and Maskin, Eric S., Sequential Innovation, Patents, And Imitation;

Llobet, Gerard, Hopenhayn, Hugo A. and Mitchell, Matthew F., Rewarding Sequential Innovators: Prizes, Patents and Buyouts.

,

‘ ’ ?

, ‘ ’

.

98 138 “ ” .

.

.

.

. II.

, .

. III.

. IV.

. .

, , IV.

.

.

73 47, 83 105, 83 107, 84 5, 84 6, 95 1920 ,

,

.¹¹⁾ ,

.¹²⁾

83 107 21159

( : , :

, : 1981.9.26, : 1981-0006622) ( )

( ) ( 19043

, :

, : , : 1978.11.21,

1981.1.20, : 1980-497, : 1980.4.22) .¹³⁾

11) 1976. 11. 23. 73 47 ; 1984.5.15. 83 107 ;

1985. 5. 28. 84 5 ; 1984. 05. 29 83 105 ;

1986. 03. 25 84 6 ; 1996. 12. 20. 95 1920 ;

2000. 4. 21. 98 9079 .

12) 1976.1.27. 74

58 . “

” , “

” . , “

”, , , 2002, 120

.

19043 ( ) .

“(RE2) (13) (R2)

(D1) (11) (D2), (D5), (D4), (D3)

(R3), (R4), (R5), (C1), (Q1), (Q2), Ex OR

(Q3) FET(Q4), (Q5) DC ON, OFF (14)

(R6), (R7), (C4), AND (Q7) FET(Q6)

(15)

.”

( ) , 21159

( ) .

“ , , DC

, (21)(23) (22)(25) (26) (24)

(A) , (33)

, RC (41) (35) (34)

(36) (RS) ,

(37)(38) (39) (40) (D)

(RS) (35) ,

”

21159

13) 1984.5.15. 83 107 .

14) .¹⁵⁾

1985 84 5 ( 19042 , :

,

: , : 1978.11.21, : 1978-5942,

: 1980-496, : 1980.4.22)¹⁶⁾ 84 6 (

19043 )¹⁷⁾ ,

( 21159 )

,

( , 84 5 19042 , 84 6

19043 )

. 19042 (

) .

“ , (R1), (R2),

(C1) (D8) (12)

(D1) (11) (D2), (D3), (D5), (D6),

(D7) (R3), (R4), (R5), (C2) (Q1), (Q2)

(13) , (D4), (R6)

14) 1983.11.19. 1982 130,131 .

15)

1976 74 58 . 1976. 1. 27.

74 58 ; 1969.3.4. 68 56 1970.7.24. 70 19

.

16) 1985. 5. 28. 84 5 . 19042 ,

21159 .

17) 1986. 03. 25 84 6 . 19043

21159 .

(Q3) (14)

.”

, 84 5 , 1983.12.28. 1982

( ) 132 ( )

( ) 21159

,

.

( ) 19042 21159

, 21159

19042 .

18)

.¹⁹⁾

. ,

.²⁰⁾

( , )

,

‘ ’

18) .

19) , “ ”, Vol. 524, 2000, 111-112 , , “

”, 35 , 2011. 8. 70 .

20) .

, ,

,

. , , 70 .

‘ ’ , .²¹⁾

.²²⁾

.²³⁾

. , “

,

,

”.²⁴⁾

. ,

.

, 98

21) 1995. 12. 5. 92 1660 ; 1991.11.26. 90 1499 ;

2001. 8. 21. 98 522 .

22) 2001. 8. 21. 98 522 ( ) ,

PSI , ( )

PSI ADMP

, ( ) 2

PSI ( ) 2

, .

23) 138 1 .

. ‘

’

( 138 2 ).

24) 2011. 4. 28. 2009 2968 ( ( )).

138

.²⁵⁾

98 “ ” “

” “ ” “ ”

98

.

“ ”

. 138

, “

98 ”

, .

83 85

.

. ,²⁶⁾

“ ( )

,

,

25) , , 71 .

26) 1985.4.9. 83 85 .

, ,

”

.

.

92 1660, 92 8330 .²⁷⁾

, 1991 90 1499

.²⁸⁾

,

‘ ’ ‘ ’

. ,

,²⁹⁾

.³⁰⁾

, .

.

(92 8330)

27) 1992.10.27. 92 8330 ; 1995. 12. 5. 92 1660 .

28) 1991.11.26. 90 1499 ; , , 121 .

29) ,

, ,

119-123 .

30) 1991.11.26. 90 1499 .

,

“

...( )...

( )

, ....( )....

.”³¹⁾

. 2001 98 522 2001 393

“

” .³²⁾

‘ ’ ‘ ’

. , ‘

’

.³³⁾ 2004 2003 2270

.

31) 1992.10.27. 92 8330 .

32) 2001. 8. 21. 98 522 ; 2001. 9. 7. 2001 393 ;

2004. 3. 25. 2003 2270 ; 2006.7.7. 2005 11087 .

.

33) , ‘ ’ ‘ ’

. ‘ ’ A a b +

(a+b) , B A c (a+b+c)

, B A B

. ‘ ’ , Y

X Y, Z

W Z . , ,

114~115 .

.³⁴⁾

.

“ 1 (18) (14)

(114) (114b)

(118) ,

(118) 1 (18)

.”

(

)³⁵⁾ .

1985 83 85

2001 98 522 ³⁶⁾

. 98 522

34) 2004. 3. 25. 2003 2270 ; 2006.7.7. 2005 11087

.

35) 1985.6.11. 84 18 , 1985.4.23. 84 19

; , “ ”,

34 , , 2011. 4. 107 .

36) 2001. 8. 21. 98 522 .

.³⁷⁾ 1985 83 85 2001 98 522 ,

83 85, 90 1499

.

.³⁸⁾

( 138 1 ),

‘ ’

( 138

2 ) .³⁹⁾

.

.

37) [ , catalyst] “

” . NAVER ,

http://100.naver.com/, 2012. 4. 28. .

38) 1 .

.

39) , “

”, , 31 , 2010.4. .

.

98 522 ⁴⁰⁾

,

.⁴¹⁾

2 PSI

,

PSI ,

,

( ,

) ,

. ,

42)

. 2002 99 2433 ⁴³⁾

‘ ’ , ‘

’

.

,

40) (1990. 1. 13. 4207 ) 45 3 .

41) 2001. 8. 21. 98 522 .

42) : 1998. 1. 6. 95 240 .

43) 2002. 6. 28. 99 2433 , : 1999. 9. 2. 99

1720 .

. 2004 2003 2270

.⁴⁴⁾

.

.

(A), (B),

(C) .

, (C)

.

.

.⁴⁵⁾

44) 2004. 3. 25. 2003 2270 .

45) , , 139 .

. .

73 47, 83 105, 83 107, 84 5, 84 6 95 1920

,

. , 73 47

.⁴⁶⁾

84 5 84 6

.

“

” ⁴⁷⁾

.

,

‘ ’

.⁴⁸⁾

‘ ’ .

46) , , 115 .

47) 1985.5.28. 84 5 : 1983.12.28. 1982

( ) 132 , 1986.3.25. 84 6 :

1983.12.28 1982 165 .

48) 1983.12.28. 1982 ( ) 132 .

.

‘ ’

.

. ,

( 21159

) ( 19042 19043 )

( )

.⁴⁹⁾

50) ,

. ,

. .

49) ,

,

,

. .

50) ( 3566 1982.11.29 ) 45 ( ) 3 , 59 (

) 1 .

,

,

, .

. 95 1920

. 95 1920 ( 1995.

11. 30. 92 377 ) (92 386)

. 95 1920 , 1991 90 1499 ⁵¹⁾

. 90 1499 ,

,

. 95 1920

73 47, 83 105, 83 107, 84 5, 84 6

.⁵²⁾

51) “ 45 3

.” 1991.11.26. 90 1499 .

52) 1996. 12. 20. 95 1920 , : 1995. 11.

, ,

( 73 47,

83 107, 84 5, 83 105, 84 6 )

.⁵³⁾ 1991

90 1499 ⁵⁴⁾

1996 95 1920 ⁵⁵⁾ .

.⁵⁶⁾ 98

138

. , 98 138

.

98

30. 92 377 .

53) 1996. 12. 20. 95 1920 ; 2000. 4. 21. 98 9079

; , “ ”, 21 , , 2000, 142 .

54) (1990.1.13 4207 ) 45 3 .

55) 1995. 11. 30. 92 377 .

56)

.

(83 85 90 1499

,

)

.

. 138

.

,

. 1999. 9. 2. 99 1720

,

. (2002 99 2433)

.⁵⁷⁾

.

57) 2002. 6. 28. 99 2433 .

.

,

.

. ,

.

.⁵⁸⁾

.

.

. ,

,

( , )

‘ ’

.

58) , , 148 .

.⁵⁹⁾

( )

.

‘ ’ .

,

‘ ’ ‘ ’

.⁶⁰⁾

‘ ’

.

.

>یԷࢂ ۘࢽ@

P1 {(a+b)c+d} , P2 [{(a+b)c+d}k+e],

P3 { c(a+b)+d/k+e}, P4 {(a+b)c‘+d’}, P5

59) ( 3566 1982.11.29 ) 45 ( ) 3 59 (

) 1 .

60) Suzanne Scotchmer, Standing on the Shoulders of Giants, pp. 29-41.

,

. Suzanne Scotchmer “ ,

” .

.

{(a+b)c‘+d’+e} . c' c d' d

P2, P3, P4, P5 . [ a, b,

c, d, e, k , +, x, /, ( )

.

(a+b) a b + , ab a b axb ,

(a+b)c a b + (a+b) c x

, (a+b)xc .]

( ) P1

P2, P3, P4, P5

.

P2 [{(a+b)c+d}k+e] P1 {(a+b)c+d} ‘ ’ ‘ ’

P1

P2 P1 P1

. P2 P1 P2

.

P3 { c(a+b)+d/k+e} , P3 P1

(a, b, c, d) P1 {(a+b)c+d}

‘ ’ { c(a+b)+d/k} P1

. P3

P1 , P3 P1

.

P1 P3

P3 P3 P1

.

.

‘ ’

.

‘ ’

. ‘ ’

.

P1 {(a+b)c+d} , P4 {(a+b)c‘+d’}

, c' c , d' d , P4 P1

. P1 P4

P4 P1 P1

. ( P4

.)

‘

’ .

. ,

.⁶¹⁾

.

P5 {(a+b)c‘+d’+e} , c' c , d' d

, e

P5 , P5 P1 , {(a+b)c‘+d’}

P1 P1

P1 P5

.

P1 P5

, P5 P1 P5

.

.⁶²⁾

a) (P2, P5)

b)

(P3) c)

(P4)

61)

(Declarations of non-infringement)

. Intellectual Property Office of the United Kingdom, Manual of Patent Practice, 71.04.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-manual-practice.htm, 2011. 3. 26. . 62)

.

3) 1) 2)

. 1)

‘ ’ .

P1 P4

, P4

P1 P4 P1

.

. (

, P1 P4

P4 .)

.

.

‘ ’

.

‘ ’

.

.

‘ ’

.⁶³⁾

.

.⁶⁴⁾

.

.

.⁶⁵⁾

.

63) , , 129 .

.

.

64) , ( 35), 113-114 .

65) , , , 2006, 213 .

,

.

.

. a)

“ ”

. b)

,

. c)

. )

. )

. )

( ) ( )

135 ( )

. 1

2

135 ( )

. 1

2 .⁶⁶⁾

135 1 2

.

. , ,

.

.⁶⁷⁾

< ( )>

66) .

.

67) , ,

( 35), 117-118 .

. .

( ) 1 2

.

( )

.

( )

.

( )

,

.

( )

,

.

( )

98

.

( ) 7

.

( )

98

.

.

.

.⁶⁸⁾ .

.

. , .⁶⁹⁾ 1997

2010 9,844 .⁷⁰⁾

900 .

.⁷¹⁾

.

.

.

68) 436 2 .

69) .

(declarations of

noninfringement) . 71 1 . UK Patent Act 1977,

71(1). http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-patent/pro-p-dispute/pro-p-proceedings.htm, 2012.

6. 23. ; ,

( 35), 96-97 .

70) http://www.kipo.go.kr/kpo/user.tdf?a=user.html.HtmlApp&c=3044&catmenu=m02_05_01_03, 2012. 6. 23. .

71)

. .

5 , , , 2005. 12.

, , , 2006.

, - ,

2007. 5.

, 30 , 2007.

, “ ”, Vol. 524, 2000.

, “

”, 34 , , 2011.

4.

______, “

”, , 31 , 2010.4.

, “ ”,

, 2007.

, “ ”,

4 , , 2008. 12.

, “ ”,

, , 2002.

, “ ”, 35

, 2011. 8.

, “ ”, 21 , , 2000. 11.

, “

”, , , 2004.

Bessen, James E. and Maskin, Eric S., Sequential Innovation, Patents, And Imitation (January 2000). MIT Dept. of Economics Working Paper No.

00-01. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=206189 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.206189.

Bradley J. Levang, Evaluating the Use of Patent Pools For Biotechnology: A Refutation to the USPTO White Paper Concerning Biotechnology Patent Pools, 19 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 229 (2002).

Ian Ayres and Eric Talley, Solomonic Bargaining: Dividing a Legal Entitlement to Facilitate Coasean Trade, 104 Yale L.J. 1027.

Jonathan M. Barnett, Property As Process: How Innovation Markets Select Innovation Regimes, 119 Yale L.J. 384.

Kaplow, Louis. and Steven Shavell, Property Rules Versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis, 109 Harv. L. Rev. 713, 716 (1996).

Llobet, Gerard, Hopenhayn, Hugo A. and Mitchell, Matthew F., Rewarding Sequential Innovators: Prizes, Patents and Buyouts (September 2000).

CEMFI Working Paper No. 0012. Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=257591 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.257591.

Michael A. Carrier, Cabining Intellectual Property through a Property Paradigm, 54 Duke L.J. 1 (2004).

Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anti-commons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698, (May 1, 1998), Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=121288.

Michael S. Mireles, An Examination of Patents, Licensing, Research Tools, and the Tragedy of the Anticommons in Biotechnology Innovation, 38U.

Mich. J.L. Reform 141 (2004).

Philip G. Pardey, Bonwoo Koo & Carol Nottenburg, Creating, Protecting, and Using Crop Biotechnologies Worldwide in an Era of Intellectual Property, 6 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 213 (2004).

Reichman, Jerome H. Of Green Tulips and Legal Kudzu: Repackaging Rights in Subpatentable Innovation, Vanderbilt Law Review [Vol. 53:6:1743, 2000], Oxford University Press.

Robert P. Merges, Of Property Rules, Coase, and Intellectual Property, 94

Colum. L. Rev. 2655.

Robert P. Merges and Richard R. Nelson, On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, Columbia Law Review May, 1990 (90 Colum. L. Rev. 839).

Robert P. Merges, Rent Control in the Patent District: Observations on the Grady-Alexander Thesis, 78 Va. L. Rev. 359, 373 n.54 (1992).

Suzanne Scotchmer, Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No.

1 (Winter, 1991), Published by: American Economic Association.

William Kingston (ed), Direct Protection of Innovation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987.

1969.3.4. 68 56 .

1970.7.24. 70 19 .

1976. 1. 27. 74 58 . 1976. 11. 23. 73 47 . 1984.5.15. 83 107 . 1984. 05. 29 83 105 .

1985.4.23. 84 19 .

1985. 5. 28. 84 5 .

1985.6.11. 84 18 .

1986. 03. 25 84 6 . 1991.11.26. 90 1499 . 1991.11.26. 90 1840 . 1992.4.28. 91 1748 . 1992.6.2. 91 540 . 1992.10.27. 92 8330 . 1995. 12. 5. 92 1660 . 1996. 7. 30. 96 375 . 1996. 12. 20. 95 1920 . 1997. 11. 11. 96 1750 .

1998. 12. 22. 97 1016,1023,1030 . 2001. 8. 21. 98 522 .

2001. 9. 7. 2001 393 . 2002. 6. 28. 99 2433 . 2004. 2. 27. 2003 6283 . 2007. 10. 11. 2007 2766 .

1999. 9. 2. 99 1720 . 2000. 4. 21. 98 9079 . 2004. 3. 25. 2003 2270 . 2006.7.7. 2005 11087 .

1983.11.19. 1982 130,131 .

1984.1.21. 1983 ( ) 30

1984.1.21. 1983 31 .

1998. 1. 6. 95 240 .

< >

. ,

.

. .

.

. 99 2433 “

,

” .

‘ ’

.

1.

, , .

‘ ’

?

2. ,

‘ ’ ?

,

‘ ’

.

,

( ) .

Abstract

:

Review on the Legitimacy of Active Trials to Confirm the Scope of a Patent

Koo, Dae-Hwan^*72) This article examines the cases by the Korean Supreme Court on active trials to confirm the scope of a patent, highlights the disharmony in the cases and provides suggestions to the Courts and proposals to amend the Korean Patent Act to enhance the efficiency in dealing with such cases.

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. Improved inventions can be patented. When there is utilizing relationship between patents, a latter patented invention which is an improved invention utilizing the former patented invention falls within the scope of the former patented invention. Utilizing relationship exists where a latter patented invention has all elements of the former patented invention as a whole and adds other elements resulting in prominent effects, which a person skilled in the arts would have not been able to conceive.

Decisions by the Korean Supreme Court on active trials to confirm the scope of patents can be summarized as follows: Trials to confirm the scope of a patent against another are illegitimate in principle. Active trials to confirm the scope of patents are legitimate when there is utilizing relationship between patents.

According to the decisions by the Korean Supreme Court, active trials to confirm the scope of patents are illegitimate only when the latter patented invention is the same as (or similar to) the former patented invention. Passive trials to confirm the scope of patents are always legitimate and active trials to confirm the scope of patents are illegitimate only when latter patented invention is the same as the former patented invention. However, even if a decision is made that the latter patented invention does not utilize but falls within the scope of the former patented invention, the decision does not make the latter patented invention invalid. It is inappropriate that active trials to confirm the scope of patents are “in principle”

illegitimate. Therefore, regardless of passive or active, trials to confirm the scope of patents should be regarded to be legitimate.

* Associate Professor, Law School University of Seoul, PhD in Law