학술논문
특허무효심판의 심판물·직권심리·일사부재리 및 심결의 성격에 관한 연구 / A Study on Subject Matter, Ex Officio Examination, Non Bis in Idem and Character of a Trial Decision of the Patent Invalidation Trial
Document Type
Dissertation/ Thesis
Source
Subject
Language
Korean
Abstract
한국, 중국, 미국 등 주요국은 무효사유를 가진 특허를 제거할 수 있도록 특허무효심판제도를 시행하고 있다. 본 논문은 제2절에서 주요국의 특허무효심판 제도의 개요를 소개한 후에 제3절에서 특허심판원의 심리대상(심판물)을, 제4절에서 심판원이 직권으로 심리 및/또는 탐지할 수 있는 범위를, 제5절에서 확정 심결의 일사부재리 효과를, 제6절에서는 특허무효심판에서의 심결의 법적 성격을 분석하고, 관련 개선방안을 제시하였다.먼저, 특허무효심판의 심리대상인 심판물은 청구취지 및 청구이유로 특정되어야 하며, 특허법에 ‘심판물’이라는 새로운 용어를 도입하여야 한다. 특허무효심판에서의 무효사유에 따라 심판물은 유형 1 및 유형 2로 나누어진다. 심판물 유형 1은 청구항 및 무효사유로 심판물이 구성되는데 반해, 심판물 유형 2는 청구항, 무효사유는 물론이고 무효사유를 증명할 (주요)증거를 포함하여 구성된다고 본다.둘째, 특허무효심판에서 직권심리가 허용되지 않아야 하며 보조증거에 대한 직권탐지만이 가능하다. 그 점을 명확하게 하기 위해 특허법 제159조의2 및 제159조의3을 신설할 필요성을 제기하였다. 현행 특허법 제159조가 규정하는 직권심리는 양당사자 심판인 특허무효심판에는 적용될 수 없다. 이러한 점을 고려하여 특허법 제159조의2에서 특허무효심판의 성격에 부합하는 처분권주의, 변론주의 및 직권탐지주의를 규정하고, 특허법 제159조의3에서 특허무효심판 등에서 특허청장이 개입할 필요가 있다고 인정하는 경우 재량으로 심판에 참가할 수 있음을 규정하여야 한다. 또한 특허권의 안정성을 제고하고 무리한 특허무효심판을 억제하기 위하여, 특허 및 각 청구항의 특허발명은 유효한 것으로 추정되고 무효를 주장하는 자가 무효사유의 존재를 증명할 책임을 부담하는 ‘특허유효추정의 원칙’을 특허법 제133조 제5항에 신설해야 한다.셋째, 특허무효심판에서의 확정 심결의 효과에 대한 특허법 제163조를 재정비할 필요성을 제기하였다. 즉 특허무효심판에는 어울리지 않는 ‘일사부재리’라는 용어에서 벗어나서 ‘확정 심결의 중복심판 금지효’라는 용어를 신설해야 하며, 확정 심결의 효력이 미치는 주체적 범위도 현재의 ‘누구든지’에서 ‘당사자 및 참가인’으로 한정되어야 한다. 확정 심결의 효력이 미치는 객체적 범위는 현재의 ‘동일 사유 및 동일 증거’에서 ‘동일 심판물’로 변경되어야 한다.넷째, 특허무효심판에 민사소송의 기본원칙인 처분권주의, 변론주의 및 직권탐지주의가 적용되어야 한다는 점(제4절에서 논한 사항), 특허무효심판에 필요적 전치주의가 적용된다는 점, 특허심판원이 중립적 판단자의 역할을 수행한다는 점 등을 고려하여 특허무효심판에서의 심결의 준사법적 판단의 성격을 인정해야 한다. 그러한 준사법적 성격을 감안하여 특허심판원의 독립성 및 공정성을 더욱 제고하여야 한다. 그러한 독립성 강화의 일환으로 특허심판원을 특허청으로부터 어느 정도 독립시켜야 한다. 특허무효심판에서의 준사법적 판단인 심결을 다른 행정심판에서의 2차적 행정처분에 해당하는 심결과 구분할 수 있도록 ‘재결’이라는 용어를 사용할 필요성을 제기하였다. 또, 특허심판원에서의 심리가 미진하여 특허법원이 특허심판원이 심리하였던 대상(심판물)을 재검토(review)하기가 어렵다고 판단되는 경우, 특허법원이 그 사건을 특허심판원으로 환송할 수 있게 하여야 한다.
South Korea, China, the United States and other major countries are implementing a patent invalidation trial system to remove a bad patent. This dissertation in Chapter 2 summarizes basics of the patent invalidation trial system in major countries, then in Chapter 3 analyzes subject matter of the patent invalidation trial, the extent to which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may ex officio investigate or ex officio examine in Chapter 4, the scope of non bis in idem of a finalized trial decision in Chapter 5, and character of a trial decision of the patent invalidation trial in Chapter 6, and relevant improvement proposals are put forward in Chapter 7.First, subject matter of a patent invalidation trial must be specified for as the plaintiff’s claim and ground of the claim, and it is necessary to introduce a new terminology, “subject matter” in the Patent Act. According to the ground for invalidation specified in the patent invalidation trial, the subject matter divided into type 1 and type 2. In type 1, subject matter consists of the plaintiff’s claim and ground for the claim. In type 2, subject matter consists of the plaintiff’s claim, ground for the claim and (primary) evidence for the claims as well.Second, in order to clarify that ex officio examination is not allowed in the patent invalidation trial, and only ex officio investigation on auxiliary evidence can be carried out, the need to newly establish Articles 159-2 and 159-3 of the Patent Act was proposed. The ex officio examination by Article 159 of the current Patent Act can’t be applied to the patent invalidation trial, which is inter partes review. In consideration of this, Article 159-2 of the Patent Act should stipulate the principle of self-disposition, the principle of pleading, and ex officio investigation, which are consistent with the character of the patent invalidation trial, and recognizes the need for the Commissioner of the Patent Office to intervene in a patent invalidation trial in Article 159-3 of the Patent Act, and in this case, the content that can participate in the referee at its discretion should be stipulated. And in order to ensure the stability of the patent right and to avoid unnecessary patent invalidation trial, a patent shall be presumed valid, and the burden of establishing invalidity of a patent and any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity, namely the principle of presumption of patent validity should be established in Article 133-5 of the Patent Act.Third, it is necessary to reorganize Article 163 of the Patent Act on the effect of a trial decision in a patent invalidation trial was raised. In other words, it is necessary to break away from the current non bis in idem jurisprudence, which is not suitable for the patent invalidation trial, “prohibiting effect of a finalized trial decision against a new trial” should be established in the Patent Act, and the subjective scope of the effect of a finalized trial decision should also be limited from current “anyone” to “the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner”. The objective scope of the effect of a finalized trial decision should be changed from the current “same ground and same evidence” to “same subject matter”.Fourth, in consideration of the principle to disposition, the principle of pleading, and ex officio investigation, which are basic principles of a civil litigation, should be applied to the patent invalidation trial (Chapter 4), the principle of the exhaustion of administrative remedies are applied to patent invalidation trial, the fact that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board plays the role of quasi-judicial judgment of a trial decision in the patent invalidation trial should be recognized. In consideration of such quasi-judicial judgment of a trial decision, independence and fairness of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should be further enhanced. As an effort to strengthen such independence, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should be made independent from the Patent Office to a certain extent. In order to clarify that the quasi-judicial judgment of a trial decision and the decision of an administrative appeal, it is necessary to recognize the “quasi-judicial decision” in the patent invalidation trial. In addition, if a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is defective, so the Patent Court believes that the subject matter of the decision is difficult to review, the Patent Court shall be able to remand the case to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for further examination.
South Korea, China, the United States and other major countries are implementing a patent invalidation trial system to remove a bad patent. This dissertation in Chapter 2 summarizes basics of the patent invalidation trial system in major countries, then in Chapter 3 analyzes subject matter of the patent invalidation trial, the extent to which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may ex officio investigate or ex officio examine in Chapter 4, the scope of non bis in idem of a finalized trial decision in Chapter 5, and character of a trial decision of the patent invalidation trial in Chapter 6, and relevant improvement proposals are put forward in Chapter 7.First, subject matter of a patent invalidation trial must be specified for as the plaintiff’s claim and ground of the claim, and it is necessary to introduce a new terminology, “subject matter” in the Patent Act. According to the ground for invalidation specified in the patent invalidation trial, the subject matter divided into type 1 and type 2. In type 1, subject matter consists of the plaintiff’s claim and ground for the claim. In type 2, subject matter consists of the plaintiff’s claim, ground for the claim and (primary) evidence for the claims as well.Second, in order to clarify that ex officio examination is not allowed in the patent invalidation trial, and only ex officio investigation on auxiliary evidence can be carried out, the need to newly establish Articles 159-2 and 159-3 of the Patent Act was proposed. The ex officio examination by Article 159 of the current Patent Act can’t be applied to the patent invalidation trial, which is inter partes review. In consideration of this, Article 159-2 of the Patent Act should stipulate the principle of self-disposition, the principle of pleading, and ex officio investigation, which are consistent with the character of the patent invalidation trial, and recognizes the need for the Commissioner of the Patent Office to intervene in a patent invalidation trial in Article 159-3 of the Patent Act, and in this case, the content that can participate in the referee at its discretion should be stipulated. And in order to ensure the stability of the patent right and to avoid unnecessary patent invalidation trial, a patent shall be presumed valid, and the burden of establishing invalidity of a patent and any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity, namely the principle of presumption of patent validity should be established in Article 133-5 of the Patent Act.Third, it is necessary to reorganize Article 163 of the Patent Act on the effect of a trial decision in a patent invalidation trial was raised. In other words, it is necessary to break away from the current non bis in idem jurisprudence, which is not suitable for the patent invalidation trial, “prohibiting effect of a finalized trial decision against a new trial” should be established in the Patent Act, and the subjective scope of the effect of a finalized trial decision should also be limited from current “anyone” to “the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner”. The objective scope of the effect of a finalized trial decision should be changed from the current “same ground and same evidence” to “same subject matter”.Fourth, in consideration of the principle to disposition, the principle of pleading, and ex officio investigation, which are basic principles of a civil litigation, should be applied to the patent invalidation trial (Chapter 4), the principle of the exhaustion of administrative remedies are applied to patent invalidation trial, the fact that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board plays the role of quasi-judicial judgment of a trial decision in the patent invalidation trial should be recognized. In consideration of such quasi-judicial judgment of a trial decision, independence and fairness of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should be further enhanced. As an effort to strengthen such independence, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board should be made independent from the Patent Office to a certain extent. In order to clarify that the quasi-judicial judgment of a trial decision and the decision of an administrative appeal, it is necessary to recognize the “quasi-judicial decision” in the patent invalidation trial. In addition, if a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is defective, so the Patent Court believes that the subject matter of the decision is difficult to review, the Patent Court shall be able to remand the case to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for further examination.