• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2011

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation's competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement" in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China's court. However, considering the criticism of China's passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it's very unlikely they'll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO's Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it's being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.67-98
• /
• 2009

Recently there are many cases on the intellectual property dispute. Among them some cases are solved through mediation and arbitration. Mediation and arbitration hold some advantage over court proceeding for intellectual property dispute. However the traditional litigation system has material limitation to settle down international intellectual property dispute. Without arbitration, litigation in court would be the only choice in case of no consensual settlement between the disputing parties. However, once being aware of the usefulness of the arbitration, people in international business widely realize that arbitration is generally preferred to litigation. Mediation is a method of settling dispute outside of court setting and many mediation committee are established since 1986 in Korea. Arbitrability has been a crucial issue in the intellectual property dispute. In most developed countries including the U.S.A. and Switzerland, arbitrability in the intellectual property dispute has been changed in recent years by law. Now in resolving the dispute with international intellectual property is needed for legal research, experience, working practices and knowledge of the intellectual property industry and so on.

• 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.24 no.3
• /
• pp.105-124
• /
• 2014

There is a growing interest in resolving intellectual property rights disputes through arbitration rather than in state courts. The internationalization of commercial relations, one of the most significant drivers of the growth of international arbitration in general, encompasses intellectual property relationships as well. In 2014, the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center revised its arbitration rules. The revision is part of a wave of recent updates of institutional arbitral rules. After briefly introducing the WIPO Center as an arbitral institution, this article assesses the features of the WIPO Rules that make them suitable for the particular challenges of IP-related disputes. A second part reviews the salient new aspects of the WIPO Rules from a comparative perspective.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.165-190
• /
• 2013

As intellectual property rights are perceived as the key element of creating added values and securing competitiveness, the result of intellectual property rights disputes play an important role in the success of companies. As seen from above strong points of an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system in Chapter III, intellectual property rights disputes increasingly tend to be resolved by ADR rather than litigation. Discussions about and operation of ADR are already being actively carried out in many countries, and major ADR institutions have been acquiring experience in a variety of intellectual property rights disputes. To enhance the use and recognition of ADR as the way of resolving the Intellectual Property Rights disputes in Korea, this study suggested the following three ways. First, domestic ADR institutions, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) will need to establish cooperative systems with prominent overseas institutions to lead the disputing parties to fair resolutions as well as to instill trust in international arbitration institutions. Second, they will need to contribute to the promotion of arbitration systems throughout society by developing and applying a variety of arbitration systems as well as securing a pool of professionals. Finally, the arbitration rules will need to be continuously improved to deal with disputes promptly and reinforce privacy protection.

• 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.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.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.33 no.3
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2023

The emergence of the metaverse, a complex three-dimensional virtual environment, has led to significant changes in the intellectual property (IP) landscape. This paper examines the challenges and legal intricacies of IP within the virtual realm, focusing on the unprecedented nature of these disputes and on the inadequacies of traditional jurisdiction methods. Drawing from international frameworks, including the International Law Association's Guidelines and WIPO's guides, the study critically explores arbitration as an alternate approach to metaverse IP disputes, analyzing its complexities and applicability. The paper further delves into challenges arising from diverse protection laws that pertain to the global nature of the metaverse, including the nuances of various digital assets like NFTs. By assessing jurisdictional difficulties, the paper addresses the adoption of decentralized justice platforms, and examines the role of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods, this paper presents a comprehensive view of the evolving virtual legal field. It suggests that while innovative methods are emerging, traditional arbitration will likely remain the preferred choice for complex disputes, offering a balance of speed, cost-effectiveness, and legal robustness within the virtual world.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.199-241
• /
• 2004

This paper discusses to what extent the party autonomy can be allowed in intellectual property dispute resolution agreements in determination of governing law, international jurisdiction, and ADR agreement for arbitration, etc. in considering of the territoriality principle of IP. The party autonomy in choice of governing law and jurisdiction can be fully enjoyed in IP contract disputes. However, the freedom of choice is limited to the disputes regarding IF infringement disputes. The party autonomy is denied in the issues of determination of validity of patent or other IP rights. The author seeks the possibility to allow as much freedom in making choice of applicable law or jurisdiction, or entering into arbitration agreement.