• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.571-610
• /
• 2013

The current patent system is more often used for defensive purposes to exclude others' use or as a means to hold unfair strong positions in negotiations rather than for the original purpose as the dissemination and active use of useful technology. An injunction together with a damage is an important remedy for patent infringements. However, unlike a claim for damages, injunctions do not require the subjective requirement of intent and negligence or the occurrence of loss. If the validity of the patent and the fact of infringement are confirmed, automatically injunctions are issued without consideration of other circumstances. So a patent holder would exclude others' use and have a powerful position in negotiations because of injunctions for patent infringements. Therefore, those injunctions for patent infringements should be flexibly restricted according to cases under the premise to ensure fair compensation for the patent owner, rather than absolutely admitting injunctions for patent infringements like now. If then, it would serve the use of a useful technology and industrial development as the purpose of the patent system. First of all, judgments for preliminary injunctions should be strict and by deliberate decision on the merits permanent injunctions should be determined. In addition, it is needed that court's discretion possible to considerate 'the need for an injunction'. When the courts judge 'the need for an injunction', 'whether a patent holder has implemented a patent invention, the possibility of monetary compensation and the ability of the infringer for damages, a patent holder's intent to license and whether an injunction has been used as a weapon of negotiation, the proportion of patent technology in the entire products, the characteristics of patent technology and the possibility of patent invalidity, the competitive relationship for market share, the public interests and gains and losses between the parties and so on' should be considered. After these judgements, if 'the need for an injunction' is not approved, a patent owner would be protected by post-monetary compensation. However, because damages are related to illegal conducts in the past, in the case that an injunction is restrained, measures to ensure the legal implementation in the future are needed. It is primarily desirable that reasonable royalty is estimated throughout private negotiations between parties, but if agreement between the parties does not occur, patent owner should be able to claim the royalty for future.

• Proceedings of the Korea Technology Innovation Society Conference
• /
• 2015.05a
• /
• pp.545-570
• /
• 2015

Korea is among the ten countries with the largest R&D budget and the highest R&D investment-to-GDP ratio, yet the subject of security and protection of R&D results remains relatively unexplored in the country. Countries have implemented in their legal systems measures to properly protect cutting-edge industrial technologies that would adversely affect national security and economy if leaked to other countries. While Korea has a generally stable legal framework as provided in the Regulation on the National R&D Program Management (the "Regulation") and the Act on Industrial Technology Protection, many difficulties follow in practice when determining details on security management and obligations and setting standards in carrying out national R&D projects. This paper proposes to modify and improve security level classification standards in the Regulation. The Regulation provides a dual security level decision-making system for R&D projects: the security level can be determined either by researcher or by the central agency in charge of the project. Unification of such a dual system can avoid unnecessary confusions. To prevent a leakage, it is crucial that research projects be carried out in compliance with their assigned security levels and standards and results be effectively managed. The paper examines from a practitioner's perspective relevant legal provisions on leakage of confidential R&D projects, infringement, injunction, punishment, attempt and conspiracy, dual liability, duty of report to the National Intelligence Service (the "NIS") of security management process and other security issues arising from national R&D projects, and manual drafting in case of a breach. The paper recommends to train security and technological experts such as industrial security experts to properly amend laws on security level classification standards and relevant technological contents. A quarterly policy development committee must also be set up by the NIS in cooperation with relevant organizations. The committee shall provide a project management manual that provides step-by-step guidance for organizations that carry out national R&D projects as a preventive measure against possible leakage. In the short term, the NIS National Industrial Security Center's duties should be expanded to incorporate national R&D projects' security. In the long term, a security task force must be set up to protect, support and manage the projects whose responsibilities should include research, policy development, PR and training of security-related issues. Through these means, a social consensus must be reached on the need for protecting national R&D projects. The most efficient way to implement these measures is to facilitate security training programs and meetings that provide opportunities for communication among industrial security experts and researchers. Furthermore, the Regulation's security provisions must be examined and improved.