03_Â÷»óÀ°_1217¸Ô

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "03_Â÷»óÀ°_1217¸Ô"

진혁 부
8 years ago
Views:

2 62

3 63 1) 2)

4 64 3) 4)

5 65 5) 6)

6 66 7) 8) 9) 10)

7 67 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18)

8 68 19) 20) 21) 22) 23)

9 69 24) 25) 26) 27)

10 70 28) 29) 30) 31) 32) 33) 34) 35)

11 71 36) 37) 38) 39)

12 72 40)

13 73 41) 42) 43)

14 74 44) 45) 46) 47) 48) 49) 50)

15 75 51) 52) 53) 54) 55)

16 76 56) 57)

17 77 58) 59)

18 78 60) 61)

19 79 62) 63) 64)

20 80 65) 66) 67) 68) 69) 70)

21 81 71) 72) 73)

22 82 74) 75) 76)

23 83

24 84 77) 78) 79)

25 85 80) 81)

26 86 82)

27 87 83)

28 88 84) 85) 86)

29 89 87)

30 90 88) 89) 90)

31 91

32 92 91) 9 )

33 93 93) 94)

34 94 95) 96)

35 95 97) 98) 99) 100) 101)

36 96 102) 103) 104)

37 97 105) 106) 107)

38 98 108) 109)

39 99 110) 111)

40 ) 113) 114)

41 ) 116)

42 ) 118) 119) 120)

43 )

44 104

45 105 Colleen V. Chien/ Mark A. Lemley, Patent Holdup, the ITC, and the Public Interest, 98 Cornell L. Rev. 1(2012). Douglas Lichtman, Understanding the RAND Commitment, 47 Houston Law Review, 1023(2010). Jay H. Reiziss/ Raquel C. Rodriguez, Why the International Trade Commission Has Become. The Nation's Hottest. Patent Docket. And How It Manages the Exploding Caseload., AIPLA SPRING 2011, BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE. Kassandra Maldonado, Breaching RAND and Reaching for Reasonable: Microsoft v. Motorola and Standard-Essential Patent Litigation, 29 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 419 (2014). Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Standard-Essential Patents: The International Landscape, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, Public Domain (Spring 2014). Lance Wyatt, Rebuttable Presumption of Public Interest in Protecting the Public Health -The Necessity for Denying Injunctive Relief in Medically- Related Patent Infringement Cases after Ebay v. Mercexchange, 13 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 298 (2013). Mark A. Lemley, Ongoing Confusion over Ongoing Royalties, 76 Missouri Law Review, 695 (2011).

46 106 Mark A, Lemley/ Carl Shapiro, A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents, 28 Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 1135 (2013). Sue Ann Mota, ebay v. MercExchange: Traditional Four-Factor Test for Injunctive Relief Applies to Patent Cases, According to the Supreme Court, 40 AKRON L. REV. 529 (2007). FTC(The Federal Trade Commission), The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition, A Report of The Federal Trade Commission (March 2011). AIPPI, Report : Availability of injunctive relief for standard essential patents, AIPPI SC Q222, (March 2014). Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d. 901 (N.D. Ill. 2012). Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No (Fed. Cir. Apr. 25, 2014). CSIRO v. Buffalo Technology Inc., 492 F. Supp. 2d 600 (E.D. Tex. 2007), aff'd in part, 542 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008). ebay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). H.H. Robertson Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc., 820 F.2d 384 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Cal. 2009). MercExchange LLC v. ebay, Inc. 401 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) MercExchange, L.L.C. v. ebay, Inc, 275 F.Supp.2d 695 (E.D. Va. 2003) Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No. C JLR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2013). Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc., 854 F.Supp.2d 993 (W.D. Wash. 2012), Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 9 USPQ2d 1913 (Fed. Cir.), cert denied, 493 U.S. 853, 110 S. Ct. 154 (1989). Smith Int'l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 718 F2d 1573, 219 U.S.P.Q., 686 (Fed Cir. 1983), cert denied, 464 U.S. 966 (1983). True Position v. Andrew Corp., 568 F. Supp. 2d 500 (D. Del. 2008).

47 The Journal of Intellectual Property Vol.10 No.4 December The Possibility of Limitations on the Exercise of an Injunction Right based on Standards Essential Patents: Focusing on a Comparative Legal Analysis between the US and Korea Abstract Cha, Sang Yook In the United States, Federal district courts may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity on such terms as the court deems reasonable. The criteria for the grant of a permanent injunction are set out in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of ebay, Inc. v MercExchange, which requires district courts to exercise their discretion before issuing an injunction and to apply a four-factor test whereby the plaintiff must demonstrate. U.S. federal district courts have the discretion to grant injunctions when the balance of equitable factors, including a consideration of the public interest, weighs in favour of granting injunctive relief. These factors have been recently applied by two federal district courts(for example, Apple v. Motorola Case, Microsoft v. Motorola Case) to deny injunctive relief to holders of SEPs who have given a FRAND commitment. In Korea, courts principally have no judicial discretion to grant injunctive relief for infringement of an intellectual property rights(iprs). In short, this paper tries to provide a comparative legal analysis between the US and Korea of the specific conditions in which injunctive relief are available for infringement of a standard essential patent for which a FRAND-commitment has been given. But the task is a difficult one. Because as mentioned earlier, basic legal system is different between the two nations. Nevertheless, it is important that we try to find the specific conditions in which injunctive relief are available

48 108 Korea Institute of Intellectual Property for infringement of a standard essential patent for which a FRANDcommitment has been given. Such as, for example, these things; breach of contract, considerations based on the principle of good faith, abuse of rights, or estoppel. Keywords Standard Essential Patents(SEPs), FRAND-commitment, RAND royalty commitments, injunctive relief, breach of contract, good faith, abuse of rights, estoppel, patent holdup

364

364 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 Carlton, Tim, The Ongoing Royalty: What Remedy Should a Patent Holder Receive When a Permanent Injunction