미국특허침해소송에서 손해배상액 산정에 관한 최근 동향 = A study on recent trends in the calculation of damages for U.S. patent infringement lawsuits

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This article is intended to highlight and review some key patent damages issues and some recent patent law decisions that grappled with them. United States patent law(35 USC §284) entitles patent patentees to an adequate compensation for losses resulting from patent infringement. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit(CAFC) measure a patentee's loss as lost profits attributable to the infringement or as a reasonable royalty during the infringement period. Although Congress has statutorily provided for discretionary enhanced damages, a judicially created threshold requires courts to find willful infringement before awarding enhanced damages.
Since 1983 Underwater Devices decision, courts have interpreted willful patent infringement as the breach of a "duty of due care" that the infringer owes to the patentee, thus equating willfulness with negligence. In its August 2007 Seagate decision, CAFC raised the standard for willful patent infringement from negligence to "objective recklessness." The new standard makes it harder to obtain enhanced damages from a patent infringer.
In a decision eagerly anticipated by the patent community, CAFC in Lucent v. Gateway vacated the jury award of $358 million and closely scrutinized the district court's application of the hypothetical negotiations approach used to determine reasonable royalties. The Lucent v. Gateway court carefully scrutinized the evidentiary value of past licensing agreements used to estimate royalties under Georgia-Pacific and found the evidence lacking. This approach deviated from historic practice and represented the newest effort by the court to prevent excessively large jury awards. The Federal Circuit's rulings in Lucent and post-Lucent cases have improved the patent damages system and should help prevent excessively large jury awards in the future. Lucent v. Gateway represents a significant shift in the Federal Circuit's patent damages jurisprudence. In a series of opinions spanning from Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc. to Uniloc USA Inc. v.Microsoft Corp., CAFC has emphasized the need for greater rigor in presenting, challenging, and reviewing a claim for patent infringement damages. In the months following Uniloc v. Microsoft, a number of district courts have applied a strict articulation of the entire market value rule.
And Uniloc v. Microsoft left no doubt that the ‘‘25 percent rule of thumb’’ as a tool for determining a reasonable royalty is dead. On Jan. 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held as a matter of Federal Circuit law that the 25 percent rule of thumb is a fundamentally flawed tool for determining a baseline royalty rate in a hypothetical negotiation. Since that rule was the basis of the damages calculations heard in the instant case, the court said that the district court erred by not excluding the testimony.
After considering all the factors, we might reach such a conclusion that these recent trends in damages calculating for U.S. patent infringement lawsuits result from some reflective considerations about US CAFC’s pro-patent policy and the highly excessive damages.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 심미랑, "특허침해에 대한 손해배상액으로서 실시료 상당액" 안암법학회 (37) : 653-688, 2012
• 2 박성수, "특허침해로 인한 손해배상액의 산정" 경인문화사 2007
• 3 배대헌, "특허권침해와 손해배상" 세창출판사 1997
• 4 안원모, "특허권의 침해와 손해배상" 세창출판사 2005
• 5 최승재, "미국특허법" 법문사 2011
• 6 최승재, "미국 판례상 특허침해와 손해배상액의 산정 ―2개의 마이크로소프트(Microsoft) 사건을 중심으로―" 세창출판사 (62) : 41-72, 2011
• 7 ヘンリー幸田, "米国特許法硏究-特許法の歴史、原理、そして実務を考える-" ILS出版 2008
• 8 孫櫻倩, "米国特許損害賠償事件におけるentire-market-value ruleの分析" 24 : 2009
• 9 竹中俊子, "知的財産法制の再構築, In 早稻田大學21世紀COE叢書企業社会の変容と法創造(第７巻)" 日本評論社 2008
• 10 竹中俊子, "知的財産權侵害と損害賠償" 成文堂 2011
• 11 田村善之, "知的財産權と損害賠償" 弘文堂 2004
• 12 배대헌, "‘가득 차면 기울고 넘친다’는 미국의 특허 손해배상 법리 - Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co. 사건판결에서 얻는 교훈 -" 한국상사판례학회 23 (23): 269-302, 2010
• 13 Christopher B. Seaman, "Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages After In Re Seagate: An Empirical Study" 97 : 417-, 2012
• 14 Randy R. Micheletti, "Willful Patent Infringement After In Re Seagate:Just What Is "Objectively Reckless" Infringement?" 84 : 975-, 2010
• 15 Joshua Stowell, "Willful Infringement and the Evidentiary Value of Opinion Letters After Knorr–Bremse v. Dana" 4 : 1-, 2005
• 16 Brian W. Nolan, "Willful Infringement and Attorney Opinions After Seagate – What’s Next?" 2008
• 17 Marc J. Pernick, "The Patent Reform Act:Reining in the Entire Market Value Rule?"
• 18 Martha K. Gooding, "Reasonable Royalty Patent Infringement Damages After Lucent v. Gateway and Uniloc v. Microsoft: Reports of the Dearth of Patent Infringement Damages Are Greatly Exaggerated" 83 : 235-, 2011
• 19 Bo Zeng, "Lucent v. Gateway: Putting the Reasonable Back into Reasonable Royalties" 26 : 329-, 2011
• 20 Paul Goldstein, "Copyright, Patent, Trademark And Related State Doctrines: Cases and materials on the law of intellectual property" Foundation Press 2010
• 21 Rachel L. Emsley, "Copying Copyright's Willful Infringement Standard:A Comparison of Enhanced Damages in Patent Law and Copyright Law" 42 : 157-, 2008
• 22 Amanda Frye, ""Inextricably commingled": a restitution perspective in patent remedies" 26 : 669-, 2013