364

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "364"

세원 아
8 years ago
Views:

1 363

2 364

3 365

4 366

5 367

6 368

7 369

8 370

9 371

10 372

11 373

12 374

13 375

14 376

15 377

16 378

17 379

18 380

19 381

20 382

21 383

22 384

23 385

24 386

25 Carlton, Tim, The Ongoing Royalty: What Remedy Should a Patent Holder Receive When a Permanent Injunction Is Denied?, 43 Ga. L. Rev. 543 (2009). Chien, Collees V., Protecting Domestic Industries at the ITC, 28 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 169 (2011). Chien, Collees V. & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, 98 Cornell L. Rev. 1 (2013). Conrad, David B., Mining the Patent Thicket: The Supreme Court s Rejection of the Automatic Injunction Rule in ebay v. MercExchange, 26 The Review of Litigation 200 (2007). Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Patents and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev (1989). Greenhalgh, Christion & Mark Rogers, Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic growth, USA: Princeton University Press Princeton and Oxford, Kitch, Edmund W., The Nature and Function of the Patent System, 20 J. L. & Econ. 265 (1977). Lemley, Mark A. & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev (2007). Merges, Robert P. & Richard R. Nelson, On The Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90 Colum L. Rev. 839 (1990). Norris, Matthew, Blocking Blocks at the Border: Examining Standard-Essential Patent Litigation Between Domestic Companies at the ITC, 98 Minn. L. Rev 713 (2013). 387

26 Thumm, Nikolaus, Intellectual Property Rights: National Systems and Hamonisation in Europe, Physica-Verlag HD, Wang, Wei, Non-practicing Complainants at the ITC: Domestic Industry or Not?, 27 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 409 (2012). 388

27 Abstract Study on the Domestic Industry Requirement in a U.S. ITC Patent Infringement Lawsuit Shim Mirang* The U.S. International Trade Commission ( ITC ) has recently become a popular venue for non-practicing entities to enforce their patent rights. Traditionally, section 337 of the Tariff Act required ITC complainants to be engaged in domestic manufacturing and demonstrate injuries to their manufacturing activities. Today, both requirements have been eliminated, dramatically increasing the presence of non-practicing entities at the ITC. Because the ITC is an administrative agency, not a federal court, ebay s discretionary test for injunctive relief does t apply. And because the ITC can t award monetary damages, it has tended to grant injunctions as a matter of course. This article challenges the ITC s role in enforcing the patent rights of such entities. The article proceeds as follows, first, discusses the ITC s recent rise in popularity and provides a history of section 337. Next part describes the domestic industry requirement and how it has evolved through statutory changes and ITC decisions, explaining in particular the 1988 Amendments that both allowed licensing to constitute a protectable domestic industry. Then this article outlines the ITC s standards in determining whether a complainant s licensing * Associate Research Fellow/ Ph.D in Law, Korea Institute of Intellectual Property (KIIP). 389

28 activities are sufficient to meet the domestic industry requirement. In InterDigital Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission(Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2013), the Federal Circuit denied a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc concerning the domestic industry requirement of section 337, explaining that a party s patent licensing activities may satisfy this requirement, even if no domestic party manufactures any article protected by the patent. Finally, the last part of this article argues that section 337 should be amended to require licensing complainants to demonstrate an injury to their domestic industry before obtaining an exclusion order and also the ITC should use the flexibility to craft exclusion orders that limit the ability of a patentee to extract settlements that exceed the economic value of the patent, a practice called patent holdup. Key Words : patent infringement, injunction for patent infringement, injunction, exclusion order, domestic industry, public interest, patent troll, Non- Practicing Entity(NPE), Patent Assertion Entity(PAE), International Trade Commission(ITC) 390

03_Â÷»óÀ°_1217¸Ô

03_Â÷»óÀ°_1217¸Ô 62 63 1) 2) 64 3) 4) 65 5) 6) 66 7) 8) 9) 10) 67 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 68 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 69 24) 25) 26) 27) 70 28) 29) 30) 31) 32) 33) 34) 35) 71 36) 37) 38) 39) 72 40) 73 41) 42) 43) 74