특허 분쟁 대응 전략 - PDF Free Download

방준호변호사

I. 소송전고려사항 II. 특허분쟁개요 III. 소송절차 IV. ITC 비교 V. 회사전략

경고장 특허분석 사내확인 사전연락기록? 특허검토 / 분석여부?

무시하면안됨 Bridgeport Music v. Combs, 507 F.3d 470 징벌적손해배상 : $3.5 million 손해배상 : $733,878

답변 ( 예 )

요약 경고장의도파악 발송자확인 경쟁사? 트롤? 발송자에대해성향파악. 발송자의의도와성향에따라답변

의견서 권리범위확인심판 (Declaratory Judgment Action)

소장답변서 Discovery Markman Hearing 재판항소

소장 ( 예 )

소장 관할권주장 (Jurisdictional Statement) 침해주장 (Statement of the Claim(s)) 판결요청 (Demand for Judgment) 배심원재판요청 (Demand for Jury Trial?) 관련자료첨부 (Exhibits) 소장수정 (Amending the Complaint)

1 차대응전략 특허분석 ( 침해 / 무효 ) 시장매출및피해금액파악 원고의의도파악 Re-examination 가능성고려 Counter-claim 가능성고려 소장전달관련 2 차대응전략 조기합의 소송 Re-examination 제출 Counter-claim 제출 Summary judgment 제출 비용고려 로펌선정

답변서 ( 예 )

답변서 답변방식 자백 or 부인 (Admit or Deny) 항변 (Affirmative Defenses) 반소 (Counterclaims) 답변서 소송요건흠결주장 당사자적격의흠결 (Lack of personal jurisdiction) 관할부적격 (Improper venue) 절차상흠결 (Insufficient process) 소장전달상흠결 (Insufficiency of service of process) 답변시기 소장수령후 20 일내

답변서 답변방식 자백 or 부인 (Admit or Deny) 항변 (Affirmative Defenses) 반소 (Counterclaims)

답변서 Defenses that can be asserted later (cannot be waived) 물적관할권 (Subject Matter Jurisdiction) 침해요건불충족 (Failure to state a claim) (Desenberg v. Google, 08-CV-10121, 8/31/2010) 필수당사자불참가 (Failure to join indispensable party)

Discovery 범위 관련성 (Relevance) 변호사 - 고객간비밀유지면책 (Attorney-Client Privilege) 변호사업무수행자료 (Attorney Work Product) 소송에있어민사법절차및지역법규제 (FRCP and/or local rules may limit the amount of discovery, how taken, etc.) 자료공개범위확정및관람권한제한명령 (Protective Orders)

Discovery Electronic Discovery 질문서 (Interrogatories) 진술 (Depositions) 자료제공요청 확인요청

Discovery Electronic Discovery 관련자료보관의무는 향후소송과관련된다고판단될때또는소송에관련있다는통보를접수했을때 의무가시작된다. Zubulake IV (220 F.R.D. 212) U.S. v. Philip Morris, 327 F.Supp.2d 21, 2004 피고는자료보관명령개시 2 년후에이메일자료를파기하여 $2.7 million 벌금이부과됐음. Coleman Holdings v. Morgan Stanley, 2005 WL 679071 피고는 discovery 와관련되어이메일자료를조작하고거짓된자료와누락으로배심원으로부터 $1.5 billion 손해배상을선거받고, 이중 $850 million 은징벌적손해배상금액이었음. Peskoff v. Faber, 240 F.R.D., 2007 피고는소송에서원고가요구하고필요로하는자료를공개해야하는의무를소홀이하여, 판사는피고에게구체적인자료조사방법에대해설명하라는명령을받았음.

Discovery Electronic Discovery 자료보관, 수집및제공을안하면페널티. Qualcomm v. Broadcom, 539 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (S.D. Cal. 2007) 법원에서 Qualcomm 에게 Broadcom 변호사비용을지불하라는 (over $10 million) 명령과, 의무를위반한변호사개인에게징계를주었음.

Discovery 질문서 (Interrogatories) 정보를수집하는데있어효과적인수단이며, 특히증인을채택하는데있어유익한정보를확보할수있음.

Discovery 진술 (Depositions) 증인확인및지명 증인해외거주시, 비용증가 해외에서진술진행가능 (Rule 28(b)) 최대일 7시간 (Rule 30(d)(2)) 증인에게관련자료공개가능 진술시기록관도참석

Discovery 변호사 - 고객간비밀유지면책 (Attorney-Client Privilege) Non-Choice of Law Bright Line approach Immediate Subordinate approach Functional approach Choice of Law Touching Base approach Most Direct and Compelling Interest approach 26

Discovery 변호사 - 고객간비밀유지면책 (Attorney-Client Privilege) Bright Line approach 해외변리사와의모든 communication 면책대상제외 Immediate Subordinate approach 미국변호사지시하에수행하는업무는면책대상인정 Functional approach 수행한업무가법적으로허용되고자격소유자의의무를했을경우, 면책대상으로인정 Minority view 27

Discovery 변호사 - 고객간비밀유지면책 (Attorney-Client Privilege) Touching Base approach 해외변리사의업무수행이미국과 근접성 이있어야면책인정 Most Direct and Compelling Interest approach 상기기준을인정하며, 해외변리사가수행한업무가변호사의업무와흡사할경우면책인정 Majority view 28

Discovery Strategy 변호사 - 고객간비밀유지면책 (Attorney-Client Privilege) 대한민국변리사와의 communication? ([ex] Nichia ITC) 미국변호사포함 사내변호사자격으로 (As in-house attorney) 외부변호사자격으로 (As outside attorney) 미국변호사통제하로임무수행 (Korean attorney/patent attorney under supervision of U.S. attorney)

Discovery Strategy Electronic Discovery 데이터관리관련사내정책수립 (Set up internal policy for data management) ([ 예 ] 일정기간동안데이터보관 ) 불필요한자료제공방지 (Avoid creating unhelpful documents) ([ 예 ] 구도로정보교환 )

청구항해석재판 (Markman Hearing) 재판전에불명확한단어해석 (Any indefinite/ambiguous/unclear terms interpreted by the Judge prior to trial) 당업자기준으로해석 (Goal is to determine what one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the term to be) 특허및출원관련자료기준으로판단 ( intrinsic evidence e.g., claims, drawings, and written description, and the prosecution history) 특허및출원관련자료외의자료로도판단 ( extrinsic evidence e.g., outside sources such as dictionary, inventor testimony, and technical experts, to determine what one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand by the use of the term)

청구항해석재판 (Markman Hearing) 만약청구항이피고에게유리하게해석되었다고판단되면비침해를주장한 summary judgment 를제출할수있음 (If the claim interpretation by the judge is particularly favorable for defendant, then the defendant should move for summary judgment of non-infringement)

Markman Hearing 청구항해석재판후 summary judgment 를제출한사례 K-2 v. Salomon, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1054 (W.D. Wa. 1998) said non-rigid shoe portion being permanently affixed to said base at least at said toe area and said heel area

청구항해석재판 (Markman Hearing) 청구항해석재판후항소를바로못함. 그러나 summary judgment 또는재판판결이결정되면청구항해석에대한항소를할있음. 항소시, 청구항해석은다시처음부터해석됨 (de novo ). 만약재판을배심원없이진행할경우, Markman hearing 단계는배제됨.

청구항해석재판전략 (Markman Hearing Strategy) 내적요소 (Intrinsic) 출원관련자료중요 출원시 Markman Hearing 을고려하며출원해야함 ) 당업자기준 외적요소 (Extrinsic) 전문가

재판 재판진행양측합의 (Pre-trial order) 원고및피고합의하작성후제출 증인, 법률이론, 양측인정사항, 등을포함 (Includes list of witnesses, legal theories, stipulated and contested facts, documents and demonstrative evidence to be submitted) 목적은재판이효과 / 효율적으로진행될수있게, 합의가능한사항및이슈는합의하고분쟁할사항및이슈를정리하는것임 (The purpose is to give the court a road map of the issues for the trial, to stipulate to certain matters, and to highlight those issues that are still in contention) 이때증거관련 This is also the time when any evidentiary motions need to be made and addressed, such as whether certain witnesses testimony will be limited, whether certain evidence will be admitted, etc.

재판 증인심문 증인을통해소송관련증거제시 ( 예, 선행기술, 출원경과 ) 상대측증인심문 기술전문가등의증인을통한증거제시

손해배상 가처분 (35 U.S.C. 283) 실제손해배상 ( 합리적인로열티이상 (35 U.S.C. 284) 대리인비용 (35 U.S.C. 285)

Commencement of Action Parties ITC Complaint filed with formal investigation instituted 30 days later One or more complainant(s) seeking to protect domestic industry exploiting its patent(s) One or more respondent(s) allegedly importing an allegedly infringing product Commission investigative attorney, representing the public interest with full party status District Court Complaint filed with Court and service of complaint commences action Plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) No separate entity to protect public interest

Jurisdiction ITC Subject matter limited to unfair competition relating to importations Personal jurisdiction need not exist District Court Subject matter is infringement of patent Personal jurisdiction must be available Procedure Discovery and trial-type hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) under ITC Rules, Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and Federal Rules of Evidence Remedy phase before Commissioners in legislative type hearing under ITC Rules, subject to statutory time limit (12-18 months) for completion Discovery and formal trial before Judge, under FRCP and FR Evidence, with or without jury

Discovery Hearing / Trial ITC All relevant, unprivileged information discoverable within limited time period of about 5 months Administrative hearing before ALJ under APA and ITC Rules Hearing time strictly limited by statutory time limits (e.g., usually not more than 1-2 weeks) District Court Same, but discovery timing in Judge s discretion Trial, with or without jury, under FRCP and FR Evid. Duration of trial at Judge s discretion Record All pleadings, rulings on motions, hearing transcript and exhibits, and post-hearing briefs.

Decision Maker/ Decision Remedy Presidential Approval ITC Initial Determination by ALJ. May be final ITC determination if not reviewed by Commissioners within 45 days Temporary or permanent general or limited exclusion order automatically enforced by U.S. Customs Service and/or cease and desist order enforced by ITC through U.S. District Court No money damages Review of ITC Final Order available for policy reasons by President within 60 days after issuance District Court Final decision by Judge Money damages and/or injunctive relief, enforced by separate contempt action or by U.S. Marshall Judge s decision is final when issued

ITC Judicial Review Appeal to CAFC within 60 days following expiration of Presidential review period without President s disapproval, or from day following President s approval, if earlier District Court Appeal to CAFC Costs Costs and attorneys fees of fully contested investigation usually are about $1-$2 million, over a 12-18 months litigation period About the same amount in costs and fees, but over a litigation period of 2-5 years, normally

고려사항 (Considerations) 경제적요소 ( 국내산업 ) 미국내에서실시 기술적요소 침해 속행

평상시 경쟁사특허분석 ( 특허맵 ) 라이선스 매입 방어적 IP pool (e.g., RPX, Intellectual Discovery, IPCube, AST) M&A 특허 / 기술협력 국내소송옵션

소송전고려사항 발송자의도파악 ( 예 : 경쟁사, NPE) 소장접수시 최소분석 일반전략 답변서제출 상황을전체적으로고려 ( 예 : 특허유효성, 원고의의도 ) Discovery Electronic discovery ( 내부정책수립 ) 비밀유지면책

Markman Hearing ( 청구항해석재판 ) 내적요소 ( 출원경과 ) 및외적요소 ( 전문가 ) ITC 미국내경제적요소 평상시 분석 / 라이선스 / 매입 IP pool/m&a/ 협력 / 국내소송