• 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.26 no.3
• /
• pp.51-66
• /
• 2016

This paper considers how various types of patent disputes can be more efficiently resolved through arbitration, rather than litigation. For this analysis, it takes three types of patent disputes as a control sample - contractual disputes, infringement disputes and FRAND disputes - and assess how these disputes can be better resolved through arbitration in terms of several criteria, namely, the suitability of the decision-makers, the number of forums in which disputes have to separately decided and enforced, procedural flexibility and confidentiality. The paper takes into consideration that certain types of patent disputes, such as infringement disputes and FRAND disputes are unlikely to be subject to pre-existing arbitration agreements. In these types of disputes, parties may make the decision between arbitration and litigation based on strategic and tactical concerns, rather than legal ones. The paper concludes that, given this limitation, it is not possible to categorically state whether arbitration is more suitable than litigation for resolving patent disputes. The most sensible course to follow in adopting arbitration for patent disputes is for legal advisors to be familiar with the intricate benefits and pitfalls of arbitration in patent disputes, and to actively consider referring a dispute to arbitration over litigation after a dispute has arisen.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.121-147
• /
• 2016

Factual issues in most patent litigation are related to very complicated techniques. Thus, the courts has emphasised that the technology in dispute has to be read and understood through the eyes of a person to whom it is directed. Therefore, among the various processes in federal litigation, most litigation in the field of patent infringement relies on at least some expert evidence. This paper focuses on issues regarding patent dispute evidence, and explore whether there are unresolved issues in evidential rules and procedures of patent proceedings. Further, this paper seeks to demonstrate that both the parties and the courts in patent disputes generally benefit from the current evidence system. However, in a number of Australian cases, the scope of expert evidence in patent cases has been strictly limited. Australian Government identified uncertain issues associated with the present patent enforcement system, due to factors such as a low level of knowledge about what patent rights entail, the high degree of uncertainty of outcome in legal proceedings, etc. Arbitration shall be reviewed and suggested as an alternative to tackling the ongoing problems in the trial system.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.111-130
• /
• 2012

Judgment on the validity of patents on the subject of an arbitration does not. In other words, the occurrence of patents generated by the administrative action, and such administrative action by an authorized agency may be treated as legitimate until it is canceled. However, recent Supreme Court judgment on novelty and inventive step as well as judgments about the validity of the patent also made possible by the judiciary. This progress even in the mediation of an arbitral award which is premised on the validity of patents can be seen that possible. However, if the arbitration by an arbitrator if possible a certain portion of the limit exists. In other words, the effect of arbitration between the parties is valid. This patent is valid and invalid in arbitration even if the judgment relative to the effect ceases. In addition, the arbitration award and patent invalidation trial is in progress at the same time, if you consequently will reach a different conclusion. This can cause problems of double track. In addition, by extending the critical target recognition and enforcement in other countries can cause problems. Despite these problems, now about the validity of patents that it is possible intervention is necessary to discuss again.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.21-33
• /
• 2018

Technological innovations can be protected by patents, and patent applications are filed in various patent offices around the world including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Recently, the U.S. exportation of artificial intelligence and internet of things patents in the form of foreign sales of articles embodying U.S. patents and international technology licenses has grown substantially. However, due to the U.S. Supreme Court's Lexmark decision reconfirming an international patent exhaustion doctrine, the asian or korean importers importing such U.S. goods embodying U.S. patents do not have to worry about patent infringement liability, even when they try to resell the patented goods to the third parties. KCAB can play a substantial role in resolving such patent disputes due to qualified expert arbitrators and the International Rules of KCAB which ensure impartiality and independence of the arbitrators.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.57-72
• /
• 2011

According to Japanese Patent Act, the Japanese Patent Office, administrative organization, was authorized to decide validation of patent. However, Supreme Court of Japan held that a court is able to decide the invalidation of patent in 11th April, 2000, which caused the reform of Japanese Patent Act in June 2004. Reformed Patent Act established the article 104-3 and makes it for a court to decide the patentability where there are grounds for a patent invalidation. Through this amendment to the Patent Act, the legislative system to decide the patent validation has been reorganized and furthermore alleged infringer is allowed to argue against the patent validation by making use of infringement litigation procedure through defenses against patent invalidation as well as invalidation trial procedure for to file a request for a trial for patent invalidation to the Japanese Patent Office. That is to say, the article 104-3 was established in the Japanese Patent Act in the wake of Kilby, and thus a court, which is judicial authority, not administrative disposition agency is also able to decide the patent validation. Thus this article discuss how a court, the authority of which only patent infringement cases fell under, has been authorized to arbitrate cases about the patent validation and the decision of the patent validation in a court.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.153-175
• /
• 2013

The issue of patent validity becomes a subject of dispute under the FTA and there is a definite difference of opinion between China, Japan, and Korea. In other words, the validity of a judgment on the patent was exclusively under the jurisdiction of the administrative agency at a particular patent office. Thus, the issue arises where there is a potential judgment on patent validity. In this case, the Supreme Court rather than the patent office can offer a judgment from a judicial institution and can make a judgment in the case of a medication. In China, however, the lowest possibility of judgment on patent validity is predicted to occur in judicial institutions. Such a judgment is recognized as the Grand Bench Decision in Korea, and the court can judge the patent validation rather than the patent office. That is just the case in the Kilby case-it is invalid for reasons obvious in Japan. Therefore, there is a substantial difference between the three countries. Especially in Japan, where after the Kilby case, they revised the patent law in 2004 to introduce Article 104-3, placing the judgment of patent validity in the court, even if the "Apparentness"is not requisite. Per this law, infringers can argue for patent invalidity not only the judgment of the patent invalidation but also the infringement lawsuit. From the point of view of Japan, Korea became the judgment of trademark validation by extension and obvious cases can become directly to judge through the Supreme Court about the right that needs to examinations and registrations. In terms of the mediation, it also provides a clue about the judgment of intellectual property validation and expands the scope of the mediation in the future. From now on, in order to have active mediation procedures in the three countries, China, Japan, and Korea would need to unify regulations and application scopes for mediation in the FTA negotiation and to look forward to achieve a vigorous mediation approach.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.411-446
• /
• 1997

This paper reports the results of an experimental companson of the winning rates in arbitral awards between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board and the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association, and analyzed the comparative advantages of KCAB in international arbitration compared with ICC. There are so many factors to analyze the level of internationalizaton and competitiveness in the arbitration. From the recent lituratures, arbitration experts reported and debated tremendous elements which is vital to have a competition in the international arbitration market. Arbitration factors such as fairness, reliability, awareness, extension, enforcement, inexpensiveness, closed and expedited proceedings, arbitrators, expert knowledge, service, arbitral award, etc. are very important to appraise the level of the globalization and competitiveness of arbitration organizations Using these factors, I appraised current level of the globalization and competitiveness of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, unique arbitration organization in South Korea. Next, we are able to compare the level of fairness using the concept of 'winning rate' All over the world, only several arbitration organizations published and opened their own arbitral awards even In anonymity. The Japanese arbitration institutions published it regularly as well as the Korean When compared with these two institutions' "winning rates". there is similiar tendency in favor of domestic corporations That is to say, the winning rates in domestic arbitration cases are greater than those in international arbitration cases. This embarks an implication of unequality, a part of unfairness, in these two countries' arbitration. Finally, an analysis was conducted between the statistics of KCAB and ICC, especially to the focus on the number of arbitration cases, arbitration tribunals, arbitration places, parties' nationalities. the types of contents, the amount of arbitration, arbitration costs. There are two meanings to keep in mind for advancement of Korean arbitration. One is to establish new strategy specializing in small amount arbitration less than US$200,000. The other is to rearrange the panel of arbitration, especially in increasing field of arbitration cases such as the disputes of license, technology transfer, patent, etc.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.519-546
• /
• 2004

On June 27, 2002 Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) launched dot-ca domain name dispute resolution service through BCICAC and Resolution Canada, Inc. The Domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) of CIRA is basically modelled after Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP), while the substance of CDRP is slightly modified to meet the need of Canadian domain name regime and its legal system. Firstly, this article examined CIRA's domain name dispute resolution policy in general. It is obvious that the domain name dispute resolution proceeding is non-binding arbitration to which arbitration law does not apply. However it still belongs to the arbitration and far from the usual mediation process. Domain name arbitrators render decision rather than assist disputing parties themselves reach to agreement. In this respect the domain name arbitration is similar to arbitration or litigation rather than mediation. Secondly it explored how the panels applied the substantive standards in domain name arbitration. There is some criticism that panelists interprets the test of "confusingly similar" in conflicting manner. As a result critics assert that courts' judicial review is necessary to reduce the conflicting interpretation on the test of substantive standards stipulated in paragraph 3 of CDRP. Finally, it analysed the court's position on domain name arbitral award. Canadian courts do not seem to establish a explicit standard for judicial review over it yet. However, in Black v. Molson case Ontario Superior Court applied the UDRP rules in examining the WIPO panel's decision, while US courts often apply domestic patent law and ACPA(Anticyber -squatting Consumer's Protection Act) to review domain name arbitration decision rather than UDRP rules. In conclusion this article suggests that courts should restrict their judicial review on domain name administrative panel's decision at best. This will lead to facilitating the use of ADR in domain name dispute resolution and reducing the burden of courts' dockets.