특허침해금지청구에 대한 새로운 판단기준의 필요성

Abstract

특허침해금지청구권은 물권적 청구권의 일종으로 특허의 유효성과 침해사실만 인정되면 자동적으로 인정되고 있다. 이에 관련기술을 실시하는 자 입장에서는 금지청구의 위험으로 인해 기술이용 및 후속기술개발을 회피하여 기술혁신이 저해되는 경우가 발생하고 있다. 따라서 절대적 금지청구권 인정보다는 특허권자에게 정당한 보상을 한다는 전제하에 사안에 따라 탄력적으로 침해금지를 제한할 수 있는 방안이 필요하다. 이를 위해 먼저 특허침해금지가처분에 대한 판단을 엄격하게 하여 되도록 본안소송에서 신중한 판단에 의해 특허침해금지에 대해서 판단할 수 있도록 해야 할 것이다. 또한, 본안소송에서는 영미법상의 ‘형평의 원리’나 가처분에 있어서 ‘보전의 필요성’과 같이 ‘침해금지의 필요성’에 대하여 판단할 수 있도록 법원에 재량권을 인정해야 한다. ‘침해금지의 필요성’ 판단시에 고려할 사항으로는 ‘특허권자의 실시여부, 금전적 보상가능성 및 침해자의 손해배상능력, 특허권자의 라이선스 의도 및 금지청구권을 협상의 무기로 사용하는지 여부, 전체제품에서 특허기술이 차지하는 비율, 특허기술의 특성 및 무효의 가능성, 시장점유율의 경쟁관계, 공공의 이익 및 당사자 쌍방의 이해득실관계 등’이 있다. 이러한 판단결과 침해금지청구가 제한되는 경우 사후 금전적 손해배상으로 특허권자를 보호해야 한다. 장래의 적법한 실시를 보장하기 위한 방안으로는 우선적으로는 당사자의 사적협상에 의해서 적절한 실시료를 산정하도록 하는 것이 바람직하다. 당사자 간에 합의가 이루어지지 않는 경우에는 특허권자가 장래의 실시료를 청구할 수 있도록 하여야 할 것이다. 이와 같이 유연하고 개방적인 특허권의 개념 모색을 통해 빠른 기술변화 시대에 맞추어 특허법의 궁극적인 목적을 달성할 수 있을 것이다.

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 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 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 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.