공정거래법상 특허권 행사행위의 평가 - 원칙적 법리의 확인
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 이호영 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-07-15T04:17:47Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2022-07-15T04:17:47Z | - |
dc.date.created | 2021-05-13 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2016-11 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1598-2335 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/153592 | - |
dc.description.abstract | While plenty of competition law discussion on exercises of Standards-Essential Patents (hereinafter “SEPs”) has been noticed recently, there has been only scanty discussion on the competition law analysis of non-SEPs so far in the Korean competition law community. Article 59 of the Monopoly Regulation Act, which is modeled after Article 21 of the Japan Anti-monopoly Act, exempts reasonable exercises of intellectual property rights. Although various theories on the provision have been suggested, most of them cannot provide the Korean competition law enforcers with clear and useful guidance on the interplay between intellectual property and competition law. The recently amended Intellectual Property Rights Guidelines (hereinafter “IPR Guidelines”) also fails to give clear and principled standards for reviewing exercises of intellectual property rights in general under the Monopoly Regulation Act. In light of the developments of case law and legal theories on the intersection of intellectual property right and competition law in leading competition law jurisdictions, so-called `Scope of the Patent test`and its variation should be rejected as a proper test for reviewing exercises of intellectual property right under the Monopoly Regulation Act. The proper standards for evaluating legality of an exercise of patent rights should strike a balance between its anti-competitive effects and its positive impact on incentives to innovate, giving ultimate priorities to consumer welfares. Additionally, the repeal of Article 59 of the Monopoly Regulation Act is recommended to avoid unnecessary confusion in the course of competition law enforcement against anti-competitive exercises of intellectual property rights. | - |
dc.language | 한국어 | - |
dc.language.iso | ko | - |
dc.publisher | 한국경쟁법학회 | - |
dc.title | 공정거래법상 특허권 행사행위의 평가 - 원칙적 법리의 확인 | - |
dc.title.alternative | Review of Exercises of Patent Rights under the Monopoly Regulation Act: Seeking for Principled Rules | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 이호영 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | 경쟁법연구, v.34, no.0, pp.68 - 106 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | 경쟁법연구 | - |
dc.citation.title | 경쟁법연구 | - |
dc.citation.volume | 34 | - |
dc.citation.number | 0 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 68 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 106 | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
dc.identifier.kciid | ART002167524 | - |
dc.description.journalClass | 2 | - |
dc.description.isOpenAccess | N | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | kci | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 특허권 행사 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 공정거래법 제59조 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 무체재산권의 정당한 행사 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 지식재산권 심사지침 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 비표준특허 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | 특허범위 기준 | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | exercises of patent rights | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Article 59 of the Monopoly Regulation Act | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | reasonable exercise of intellectual property rights | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | IPR Guidelines | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Non-SEP | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | scope of the patent test | - |
dc.identifier.url | https://accesson.kisti.re.kr/main/search/articleDetail.do?artiId=ATN0030030489 | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
222, Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, Korea+82-2-2220-1365
COPYRIGHT © 2021 HANYANG UNIVERSITY.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.