• 한국벤처창업학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2007.11a
• /
• pp.15-43
• /
• 2007

The object of this study is to present a strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries focusing on international cooperation policy of KIPO and infringement of overseas intellectual property rights on the notion that a policy performed without a long-term plan will not lead to industrial growth in the long run. The number of dispute cases of intellectual property rights in Japan ranks first with 275 cases compared to that of other countries. Among the dispute case, the number of validation trial is 107 cases(38.9%), and correction trial is 83 cases(30.2%). The USA ranks second in dispute of intellectual property rights. Among the dispute of intellectual property rights in the USA, the number of validation trial is 66 cases(64.7%), and correction trial is 21 cases(20.6%). A strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries is as follows. A strategy is required to cope with infringement of overseas intellectual property rights. Korean government has to strengthen the function of overseas intellectual property rights protection center, strengthen boundary restriction of infringement goods, promote international dispute study, train international dispute specialist, solve jurisdiction problem of patent court system, improve trial system, construct confidence as social capital etc. Enterprises have to maintain No Patent No Future policy, specialize on application and countermeasure against infringement dispute, participate for formation and standardization of Patent Pool, strive for specialization regarding technical transfer and license management.

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.23-45
• /
• 2008

The object of this study is to present a strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries focusing on international cooperation policy of KIPO and infringement of overseas intellectual property rights on the notion that a policy performed without a long-term plan will not lead to industrial growth in the long run. There is a high possibility that aggressive patent policy and black box strategy of Japanese enterprise can be a burden to Korean enterprises. Thus, a policy should be established against the technology protectionism. The policy can be based on a strategy about international cooperation policy of KIPO and strategy against infringement of overseas intellectual property rights. Of course, collaboration and cooperation will be activated among the advanced countries including technical cooperation. However, a systematic strategy of intellectual property rights should be focused on international cooperation and countermeasure against infringement of overseas intellectual property rights because national interest takes precedence over any other interest especially in case of strategically owing industry. A strategy against technology protectionism of advanced countries is as follows. A strategy is required to cope with infringement of overseas intellectual property rights. Korean government has to strengthen the function of overseas intellectual property rights protection center, strengthen boundary restriction of infringement goods, promote international dispute study, train international dispute specialist, construct confidence as social capital etc. Enterprises have to maintain no Patent no Future policy, specialize on application and countermeasure against infringement dispute, participate for formation and standardization of patent pool, strive for specialization regarding technical transfer and license management.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.155
• /
• pp.18-33
• /
• 2011

<경쟁저널> 제155호부터 '해외 경쟁법 주요 심판결 사례 해설'을 연재합니다. '해외 경쟁법 주요 심판결 사례 해설'은 필자인 경북대학교 최승재 교수가 우리 경쟁법 커뮤니티에게 시사 하는 바가 크다고 판단하는 다양한 해외 경쟁법 심판결 사례들을 소개하고 정리하면서, 경쟁법에 대한 적용 및 이해의 다양한 폭을 넓히게 될 것입니다. 이번 호는 연재의 첫 회로 Princo Corp. v. International Trade Comm'n, No. 2007-1386 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2010) 사건을 소개합니다. 이 사건은 미국 연방항소법원(CAFC)의 전원합의체 사건으로, 지식재산권과 경쟁법 간의 교착지점에서 의미 있는 사건으로 주목할 필요가 있습니다.