대한민국 지식재산전문법원의 사물관할 = Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Korea IP Specialized Court

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper studies the subject matter jurisdiction of the would-be established IP specialized court of the Republic of Korea. For the study, precedents of Europe, the U.S.A., the U.K., Switzerland, Taiwan and Japan were comparatively analyzed. Based on such analysis, this paper proclaims the followings: First, the Korea IP Specialized Court (considering current subject matter jurisdiction of the Korea Patent Court) must have exclusive jurisdiction on cases arising under the laws of patent, utility model, trademark and design. As a reference, Europe, the U.S.A. and Japan have such jurisdiction on patent or technological cases only, and on the other hand, Taiwan and Switzerland have such jurisdiction on broad intellectual property related cases. Second, other intellectual property related cases on, for example, copyright, employee invention, license agreement may be dealt with either the IP Specialized Court or relevant district court, thereby allowing the plaintiff to choose his convenient forum. Third, even though the plaintiff’s complaint does not include patent related issues, if a nonfrivolous counterclaim raised by the defendant includes patent related issues, the case must be classified as a patent case. Fourth, the Korea IP Court (similar to Taiwanese precedent) must have the IP Appeals Court, the IP Seoul District Court and the IP Daejeon District Court. If a special division is established in current general court, it would be difficult to specially treat the division differently from other normal divisions in the court. Fifth, the judges who will serve in the IP Specialized Court must be selected among judges based on their IP expertise or specially recruited among already experienced IP specialized lawyers, and further more, must have at least five year tenure and better be reappointed upon their wish.
Key Words : Patent Court, IP Specialized Court, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Consolidation of Jurisdiction, Expertise

국문 초록 (Abstract)

이 글은 향후 우리나라에 설립될 지재전문법원이 어떤 종류의 사건에 대하여 관할을 가질 것인지에 대하여 검토하였다. 그러한 검토를 위하여 유럽, 미국, 영국, 스위스, 대만 및 일본의 사례를 비교, 분석하였고, 그 분석에 기초하여 다음과 같은 제안을 한다. 첫째, 우리 지재전문법원은 (기존의 특허법원 관할을 고려하여) 특허, 실용신안, 상표, 디자인 사건에 대하여 전속관할을 가져야 한다. 참고로, 유럽, 미국, 일본이 사물관할을 특허 또는 기술 사건에 한정하는 반면, 대만, 스위스가 지재 관련 사건까지 넓히고 있다. 둘째, 저작권, 직무발명, 라이선스계약 등 지재 관련 사건에 대하여는 지재전문법원과 해당 지역법원이 경합관할을 가지도록 하여 원고가 법원을 선택할 수 있도록 하여야 할 것이다. 셋째, 원고의 소장이 특허 쟁점을 포함하지 않는다 하더라도 피고의 적절한 반소가 특허 쟁점을 포함하는 경우 그 사건은 특허사건으로 분류되어야 한다. 넷째, 우리 지재전문법원이 (대만과 유사한 방식으로) ‘특허법원’이라는 하나의 큰 이름 아래, 특허고등법원, 특허서울지방법원 및 특허대전지방법원으로 구성되는 것이 바람직하다. 일본과 같이 기존의 법원 내에 전담부(special division)를 두는 방식으로는 그 전담부를 그 법원 내의 일반 부와 다르게 특별히 운용하기가 어려워지기 때문이다. 다섯째, 지재전문법원에서 근무하는 판사는 가급적 이미 지재권법에 정통한 판사를 동 법원에 임명하도록 하고, 또, 특허사건의 경험이 많은 변호사 중 희망하는 자를 선발하여 동 법원에 판사로 임명하여야 하고, 임기도 최소 5년, 바람직하게는 7년이 되어야 하고, 본인이 희망하는 경우 연임이 가능하도록 하여야 한다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 김관식, "특허침해소송에서 진보성결여를 이유로 하는 특허무효의 항변이허용되는지 여부" 지식재산연구원 2012
• 2 정차호, "특허심판원 및 특허법원 기능 제고를 위한 미국 BPAI 및 CAFC연구" 특허청 2006
• 3 박성수, "특허소송의 관할집중에 관하여" 한국지적재산권법제연구원 2005
• 4 도두형, "특허법원 관할집중방안에 관한 의견, 특허침해소송을 특허법원의 전속관할로 하는 것이 바람직한가" 한국지적재산권법제연구원 2004
• 5 김상균, "미국연방민사소송의 재산을 근거로 한 재판관할권" 한국법학회 (45) : 223-246, 2012
• 6 김민지, "글로벌 특허분쟁 현황과 정책과제" 국회입법조사처 2012
• 7 신운환, "과학기술 발전을 위한 특허소송제도의 개선 방향" 한국산업재산권법학회 13 : 135-200, 2003
• 8 서철원, "가상공간에서의 관할권행사에 관한 소고" 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2004
• 9 Richard C Price, "United Kingdom, Patents in Europe2011/2012"
• 10 Michael Burdon, "UK Patents County Court — Phoenix Risen?" 2003
• 11 Subcommittee on Patents, "Trademarks, and Copyrights" 3 : 1959
• 12 Jiwen Chen, "The Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule and Jurisdiction over Patent Law Counterclaims: An Empirical Assessment of Holmes Group and Proposals for Improvement" 8 : 94-, 2009
• 13 Scott Cole, "The Rise and Fall of Patent Law Uniformity and the Need for a Congressional Response" 81 : 713-, 2006
• 14 S. Jay Plager, "The Price of Popularity: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007" 56 : 751-, 2007
• 15 Elizabeth I. Rogers, "The Phoenix Precedents: The Unexpected Rebirth of Regional Circuit Jurisdiction Over Patent Appeals and the Need for a Considered Congressional Response" 16 : 411-, 2003
• 16 Chancellor of the High Court, "The Patents County Court Guide"
• 17 Cyrill P. Rigamonti, "The New Swiss Patent Litigation System, 2 Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law" 3-, 2011
• 18 Cyrill P. Rigamonti, "The New Swiss Constitution and Reform of the Federal Judiciary"
• 19 Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, "The Federal Circuit: A Case Study In Specialized Courts" 64 (64): 1989
• 20 W.M. Hindmarch, "The Defects of the Patent Laws of this Country with Suggestions for Reforming Them"
• 21 INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHT COMMITTEE, "TOKKYO HOU TOU NO KAISEI NI KANSURU TOUSHIN (Invitation of Comments on the Proposal for Revising Patent Law and Other Industrial Property Laws)"
• 22 Michael Fysh, "QC SC, Intellectual Property and Particularly Patent Litigation in the United Kingdom, at the report of Study on Specialized Intellectual Property Courts" 2012
• 23 Michael Ritshcer, "Patent Litigation in Switzerland-At the Brink of a New Era, on the book, Patent Practice in Japan and Europe" Wolters Kluwer 2011
• 24 European Patent Office, "Patent Litigation in Europe: An Overview of the National Patent Litigation Systems in Europe 40 (2nd Ed.)"
• 25 Japan Patent Office, "Patent Infringement Litigation in Japan"
• 26 Lee Petherbridge, "On the Development of Patent Law" 43 : 893-, 2010
• 27 Sung-Mei Hsiung, "Numbers & Challenges - A Baby Court Toward to Five Years Old"
• 28 Arthur O. Hall, "Multinational Enforcement of Patent Rights: National Jurisdiction Over Infringement and Validity of A Foreign Patent" 94 : 192-, 2012
• 29 Scott Amy, "Limiting the Jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit: How Holmes Alters the Landscape of Patent Cases on Appeal" 38 : 429-, 2003
• 30 Masahiro Samejima, "Is Japan a hostile environment for patents?" 2010
• 31 Joseph Etra, "Holmes v. Vornado: A Radical Change in Appellate Jurisdiction" 5 : 4-, 2003
• 32 Wright, Miller, "Federal Practice and Procedure § 3566 (3d ed. 1998). Zuallcobley, et al., Study on Specialized Intellectual Property Courts"
• 33 Christopher M. Holman, "Do Reverse Payment Settlements Violate the Antitrust Laws?" 23 : 490-, 2007
• 34 Kenneth C. Bass, III, "Critique and Consequences of the Supreme Court's Decision in Holmes v. Vornado" 5 : 501-, 2003
• 35 Ryoichi Mimura, "Court Appointed Experts with Technical Knowledge in Japan"
• 36 Draft agreement on a Unified Patent Court and draft Statute, "Council of European Union Document 14268/12 of Sept. 27, 2012"
• 37 Toshiko Takenaka, "Comparison of U.S. and Japanese Court Systems for Patent Litigation: A Special Court or Special Divisions in a General Court?"
• 38 Kiat Poonsombudlert, "Case Study of Thailand’s IPR Court Regime, at Zuallcobley, et al., Study on Specialized Intellectual Property Courts"
• 39 Christopher Cotropia, "Arising Under Jurisdiction and Uniformity in Patent Law" 9 : 253-, 2003