• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2021

General lawsuits can be chosen as a method of resolving patent disputes. However, a significant amount of time and money is wasted on litigation until the dispute is resolved. The Intellectual Property Framework Act in Korea requires the government to simplify litigation procedures and improve litigation systems to resolve intellectual property disputes quickly and fairly. As a result, accurate and timely resolution of patent disputes is given importance by the Korean government. Interest in arbitration as an alternative method of dispute resolution is growing. Although dispute resolution through arbitration is effective, the issue of resolving patent disputes through arbitration can lead to the arbitrability of patent disputes. It is therefore necessary to examine arbitrability of patent contracts and validity disputes. Korea has made efforts to reflect the model arbitration law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law for quick judicial resolution of patent disputes. Korea has also strengthened related systems for alternative resolutions. However, improving the arbitration system will necessitate a thorough examination of the systems and practices of the United States which is the country in the forefront of intellectual property. This paper examines the arbitrability of Korea's patent dispute and makes recommendations for more efficient dispute resolution system changes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.71-100
• /
• 2007

To promote the way of resolving the increasing disputes regarding international intellectual property by arbitration, we should overcome uncertainty thwarting the dispute resolution; i.e., whether a dispute regarding intellectual property would be an arbitrable subject, whether the arbitration agreement would be valid and enforceable, and whether the arbitral award could be recognized and enforced in a foreign country. This article is intended to seek how to promote and facilitate the resolution of international disputes regarding intellectual property by arbitration. This article in Chapter II will examine the characteristics of the IP disputes first. Chapter III of this article will study arbitrability of IP disputes. Then, Chapter IV will discuss the requirements, validity, and effectiveness of arbitration agreement of international IP disputes. The author will discuss the procedure of arbitration of the international IP disputes in Chapter V, and finally the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards thereon in Chapter VI. Due to the so called 'territoriality principle' in intellectual property, the international disputes thereof confront numerous procedural setback, e.g., jurisdiction, conflict of laws, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or awards. To overcome such setbacks, I propose resolution of international IP disputes by one-step arbitration procedure through widely recognizing the arbitrability of IP disputes, and utilizing unnational nature of arbitration. In addition, I propose to set up the principles as to arbitration of the international IP disputes as the American Law Institute has formulated the principles for International Intellectual Property Litigations. By setting up these principles, I am certain it will be helpful to just and prompt resolution of international IP disputes which occur more frequently these days.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.125-167
• /
• 2003

ADR program is designed to solve the problem such as the increase of suits and decision delayed. ADR program has the several significances, decreasing inappropriate cost as time and burden of courts, providing an approachable measure of relief and more efficient tool for settlement of dispute. Particularly ADR program satisfies the needs Intellectual property disputes need specialists that are versed in the subjected problem and, need to be souled quickly in confidence. And parties concerned are not good at the strict judicial procedure in courts, At this point, ADR program holds some advantages over court proceeding for intellectual property disputes. Specialists can be selected as arbitrators or mediator; Cofidentiality may be preserved; Flexibility allows settlement based on mutual commercial interests; Single solution is possible for multiple disputes involving parties from different countries. However, ADR program has not been properly used in. Korea, which is due to not only the lack of understanding the ADR program, but the poor number of filings and settlements. Intermediaries are not professional and also they do not take active hands in disputes. Sometimes, their fairness is asked as peacemakers. Eventually, it is said that this program is not enough to settle international disputes. To activate the ADR program, we can propose the ADR program annexed to court for example. And we can introduce the conciliation and arbitration to disputes in intellectual property. Traditionally arbitration has been a crucial issue in intellectual property disputes. In that intellectual property rights are granted by the local sovereign power, many legal systems in the past maintained the position that the existence, extent, meaning and application of such rights could only be definitively decided by the granting authority or the courts of that country. There is wide recognition that the arbitration of intellectual property is desirable. The law in most of the major countries has been changed in recent years in favor of arbitrability of intellectual property rights. We can also propose ADR on-line.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.51-74
• /
• 2024

Korea continues to invest in the IT industry and is currently regarded as one of the five major powerhouses in the field of intellectual property. However, it is evaluated that this status is only limited, and the level of intellectual property protection and dispute resolution does not reach a level commensurate with the status of one of the five major intellectual property powers. To address these problems, the Korean government has enacted the Arbitration Industry Promotion Act in 2017, which aims to strengthen national competitiveness by fostering the arbitration system as an industry and provide systematic support so that the arbitration industry can become a future growth engine. In addition, in accordance with Article 3 of the 「Arbitration Industry Promotion Act」, the Minister of Justice must establish "the Basic Plan for Arbitration Industry Promotion" every 5 years. Great efforts must be put into establishing an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) system at the KCAB for five years from 2024 to 2028, the Second Basic Plan for the Promotion of the Arbitration Industry period. Under these circumstances, this study presents implications and improvement measures for the development of the intellectual property-related arbitration system to protect Korea's intellectual property rights and contribute to more active intellectual property creation. In particular, this study proposes a plan to build an one-stop digital platform for KCAB to implement an efficient ODR system.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.85-112
• /
• 2011

These days utilization of copyright in daily life and economic activities is becoming more important than ever, and IT technology is developing day by day. Along with those fact, copyright infringement and dispute is naturally increasing. This thesis dealt with the 3 different issues of ADR on copyright. The First part, introduce ADR system that was performed by Korea Copyright Committee according to Copyright law. This paper evaluate the committee's efforts to provide resolution of copyright disputes via conciliation was effective. So it needs to be look over several countries' ADR, beside conventional judicial remedy. And Korea's copyright conciliation system which is successfully operating also introduced. Second, In many countries, including South Korea are take advantage of conciliation as the way to settle down the dispute over copyright. Furthermore, looked over if we can use arbitration as tool to settle dispute or not. Currently in Korea, patent dispute is handled by Industrial Property Dispute Conciliation Committee(The Invention Promotion Act Ch.5) and Layout-design Review and Mediation Committee(The Act on the Layout-designs of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Art.29-34), but using performance of those two committee is still too low. In comparison, the copyright committee, a affiliation organization of the ministry of culture, sports and tourism has much more result in conciliation compare with patent dispute. Copyright disputes has arbitrability of it's subject-matter and many regulating organs are interested in it. (especially, binding of arbitral award and final resolution). Take advantage of both conciliation and arbitration could be good way to resolve copyright disputes. Third, the writer look at the proposal on the creation of Northeast Regional Center for Intellectual Property ADR. Because of the nature of copyright and rapid development of internet technology, international use of work become more frequent and accordingly infringement cases are increasing. The role of commercial arbitration regimes and institutions which has progressed significantly worldwide level, but which has only just begun in the intellectual property ADR area, leads also to a clash of often very different legal cultures and protection in a market economy. International cooperation in regional area with conflict interests becomes an important alternative. But it will depend on the building of regional institutions and mechanisms. The feasibility of this proposal and preconditions were examined. Establishment of new international organization requires a lot of time, cost and efforts. And risk of failure is much too high. Therefore factual, statistical review should be preceded. In addition, technical measures, such as on-line arbitration is necessary to review also. Furthermore in order to establish new organization, the relative law, legal environment, public sentiment and international compliance must be carefully considered with factual review about the needs and economic benefits of each country Yet on complex regulatory matters such as IP and ADR, a great deal of the potential benefits from international standards arises not from the international legal framework nor even the formal content of national legislation, but from the informed and effective use made of the possibilities within the system, including by policymakers and regulators.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.57-75
• /
• 2007

Ever since franchising emerged in the industry of distribution, it has been growing explosively in the U.S.A. and all other countries as well. It is a method of expanding a business by licensing independent businessman to sell the franchiser's products and/or services or to follow a format and trade style created by the franchiser using the franchiser's trade marks and trade names. Franchising is a form of business that touches upon many different areas of law including, but not limited to, general contract law, general principles of commercial law, law of intellectual property, competition law, fair trade practices law and other industry specific laws e.g., the Fair Practices in Franchising Act in Korea. Arbitration is a long established, legally recognized procedure for submitting disputes to an outside person(s), mutually selected by the parties, for a final and binding decision. Despite its merits as an alternative dispute resolution, it has been criticized, on the other hand, particularly by franchisees' attorneys on the ground that even though it is required to protect the franchisees against the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements because of the franchisees' paucity of bargaining power vis-a-vis the franchiser, arbitration cannot afford it. Until recently, however, little has been written about the legal issues pertaining to franchise agreement and arbitration clause contained therein in Korea. This treatise reviews the cases and arguments in relation to the subject especially of the U.S.A., which have been accumulated for decades. The issues addressed herein are the pre-emption by the FAA, the disputes to be arbitrated, the selection and qualification of arbitrators, the place of arbitration hearings and the evidentiary rules applicable, the expenses of arbitration, theory of fiduciary duty and the like, all of which are relevant to franchise agreement.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.93-118
• /
• 2012

본 연구는 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 대한 미국 케이스에 관한 연구입니다. 본 연구의 목적은 한국의 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 대한 추후 연구와 가까운 장래에 비교연구를 위해서 지적재산에 관련된 케이스들에 관하여 미국의 연구들을 논하는데 있습니다. 본 연구에서 지적재산 관련 사건들의 중재에 관한 미국케이스들을 채택하였습니다. 그리고 본 연구의 목적 달성과 효과적인 연구를 성취하기 위해 그 케이스들을 인용하였습니다. 그러므로, 본 연구의 구성은 특히, 라이센싱분쟁의 중재, 특허분쟁의 중재, 저작권분쟁의 중재를 위하여 지적재산분야와 중재 분야에 있는 케이스로 이루어져 있습니다. 중재조항은 분쟁에 관해 누가 결정할 것인가 그리고 분쟁이 중재 가능한가 아닌가에 관하여 법원에서 중재적격 문제들을 분석할때에 계약 원칙을 적용하게 됩니다. 일반적으로, 중재적격의 의문은 사법적 분야의 질문에 관한 것 입니다. 그러나, 중재조항이 분명하고, 명백하고, 오해없는 문구들인 곳에서 법원은 연방 중재법이 중재조항과 중재범위를 포함하고 있기 때문에 중재를 존중합니다. 그러므로, 저런 경우에 중재인은 중재적격을 판단 할 수 있습니다. 그러나, 미국에서 법원은 어떤 케이스들은 ICC 룰로 구속되어지고 그리고 다른 케이스들은 AAA 룰로 구속 되어지는 것을 발견했습니다. 어떤 룰이던지 간에 중재조항은 주의깊게 만들어야만 하고 그리고 분명하고 명백한 구문을 제공하여야만 한다는 것을 법원에 의해 요구되어지고 있습니다. 본 연구에서 발견한 점들은, 라이센싱분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 중재합의의 범위가 광범위 또는 제한적일지라도 양 당사자의 중재조항을 위해 계약에서 분명하고 명확한 문구를 만드는 것이 중요합니다. 이것은 우리에게 계약의 원칙이 분쟁에서 적용 되어지고 있다는 것을 보여 주고 있습니다. 그래서, 중재조항의 조문은 법원이나 중재인에게 논쟁 또는 오역이 없게 확실하고 분명하게 명시하여야 합니다. 특허분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 대부분 법원들은 케이스들을 분석할때에 광범위한 중재조항에 따라오고 있습니다. 중재적격 결정의 테스트로서 계약에서 "arising under" or "relating to" 구절은 ADR을 위해 그리고 분쟁의 예방을 위해 중재가 광범위한 문구를 포함하고 있는가 아닌가를 보는데 중요합니다. 더구나, 특허 또는 특허관련 권리들 하에서, 중재는 연방중재법에 의해 지배되기 때문에 계약은 특허 유효성 또는 침해 문제들이 중재를 통한 분쟁을 해결하도록 하나의 문구를 포함해도 됩니다. 그러므로, 이 분석은 미국의 케이스들을 비교한 결과로서, 한국중재법도 또한 모든 필요한 조문들이 그것들이 광범위하건 제한된 범위이건 간에 모호한 이슈들을 피하기 위해 분명하고 오해없는 문구들이여야 한다는 것을 제시합니다. 지적재산분쟁의 중재에 있어서, 케이스에 근거하여 발견한 점들은 저작권법을 포함한 광범위한 중재조항이 있는 경우 저작권의 유효성은 법원이 독점할 수 없다고 법원은 판단했습니다. 그리고 연방중재법은 법원이 청구취지가 중재가능한 클레임들에(arbitrable claims) 관하여 중재를 강요하도록 지원하고 있습니다. 이것은 저작권 케이스일지라도 계약에 있어서 중재조항이 법원이 중재를 강요하도록 중재가능한가 아닌가 결정하는데 분쟁에 있어 중요한 역학을 한다는 것을 제시합니다. 그러므로, 본 연구는 계약에서 광범위한 중재조항은 중재인이 지적재산 클레임에 대해 판정 또는 룰을 결정하게 허용한다는 것을 발견했습니다. 본 연구의 결과들은 계약에 있어 중재의 범위는 계약의 원칙을 적용한다는 것입니다. 그리고 중재조항에 있어서 침해와 유효성 문제들의 결정은 계약 해석에 관련되어 있다는 것을 제시합니다. 그러므로, 양 당사자가 분명하고 명확하게 달리 결정하지 않았다면, 양 당사자가 중재에 대해 동의했는가 아닌가의 의문점은 법원에 의해 결정되어지는 것입니다. 이것은 분명하고 명확한 문구가 중재조항에 존재하지 않는다면 중재인에 의해 결정되지 않는다는 것을 뜻합니다. 중재조항은 명백하게 중재인에게 결정의 권한을 주어야만 한다는 것입니다.