94
95 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)
96 7) 8) 9)
97 10)
98 11)
99
100 12) 13)
101 14) 15) 16) 17)
102
103 18)
104 19) 20) 21) 22)
105 23) 24)
106 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30)
107 31) 32)
108 33) 34) 35) 36)
109 37)
110 38) 39) 40) 41)
111 42) 43)
112
113 44) 45) 46)
114 47) 48) 49) 50)
115 51) 52)
116 53)
117 54) 55)
118 56) 57) 58) 59)
119 60) 61) 62) 63) 64) 65) 66) 67)
120 68) 69) 70) 71) 72) 73)
121 74) 75) 76)
122 77) 78) 79) 80) 81)
123 82) 83) 84)
124 85)
125 David S. Almeling, Seven Reasons Why Trade Secrets Are Increasingly Important, Berkeley Tech. L.J., Vol.27(2012). David S. Almeling et al., A Statistical Analysis of Trade Secret Litigation in Federal Courts, Gonz. L. Rev., Vol.45(2010). David S. Almeling et al., A Statistical Analysis of Trade Secret Litigation in State Courts, Gonz. L. Rev., Vol.46(2011). Katarzyna A. Czaprack, Antitrust and Trade Secrets: the U.S. and the EU Approach, Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J., Vol.24(2008). Tun-Jen Chiang, Defining Patent Scope by the Novelty of the Idea, Wash. U. L. Rev., Vol.89(2012). Colleen Chien, Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents, N.C. L. Rev., Vol.87(2009). Eric E. Johnson, Trade Secret Subject Matter, Hamline L. Rev., Vol.33(2010). Mark A. Lemley, The Surprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrets as IP Rights, Stan. L. Rev., Vol.61(2008). Irina D. Manta, The Puzzle of Criminal Sanctions for Intellectual Property Infringement, Harv. J.L. & Tech., Vol.24(2011). Ben Shiffman, Danielle Goldman, Lauren Pomeroy, Intellectual Property Crimes, Am. Crim. L. Rev., Vol.49(2012).
126 Deepa Varadarajan, A Trade Secret Approach to Protecting Traditional Knowledge, Yale J. Int l L., Vol.36(2011). PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS, 2013 Patent Litigation Study: Big cases make headlines, while patent cases proliferate, 2013, <http://www.pwc.com> <http://www.kli.re.kr>
The Journal of Intellectual Property Vol.9 No.3 September 2014 127 The Actual State of Trade Secrets Disputes and Cause of Growth: Comparing with Patents Min Soo Seul Abstract Trade Secrets which feature secrecy as most essential element are competing dominant status of intellectual property protecting industrial technologies with patents which feature disclose the operative principles of non-obvious inventions to public, though trade secrets are latecomer. This article shows that trade secrets are working as more important intellectual property than patents in protecting big company and high-tech technologies which have impacts through empirical analysis of first courts opinions of civil cases granting damage awards from 2009 to 2013. The analysis features in general consequences of outcome, parties, technologies and procedures in disputes comparing trade secrets infringement with patents. The cause of exponential growth of trade secrets as intellectual property protecting industrial technologies lies in evolving industrial structure toward mid or high level technologies and ICT manufacture industries utilizing trade secrets in fixed assets in fierce price cutting competition, changing industrial environment towards fluidity of employees which weakens royalties to firms and transformation into the digital informations. Meanwhile, institutional factors in trade secrets like elasticities of subject matters and extension of criminal liability aided by crime of misappropriation contribute this exponential growth. The rapid rising of trade secrets as intellectual property and proliferation of infringement disputes could be
128 Korea Institute of Intellectual Property Korean Intellectual Property Society demand of times of digitalized high-tech industry, but it remains tasks of balancing interests of employees who contribute substantially to forming the trade secrets. Keywords Trade Secrets Infringement Suit, Secrecy, Patents Infringement Suit, Employee s Mobility Crime of Misappropriation