In-House Counsel Forum

Newsletters by Sponsors

본문 바로가기

HOME > Sponsors > Newsletters by Sponsors

Sponsors

[법무법인 광장] Supreme Court confirms licensee’s standing to challenge patent validity

페이지 정보

Date19-03-12 11:40

본문


상단 이미지

Supreme Court confirms licensee’s standing
to challenge patent validity

On February 21, 2019, the Supreme Court of Korea issued an en banc decision overruling its prior precedents on the issue of whether a licensee who is continuing to make royalty payments under an existing license agreement nevertheless has standing to challenge the validity of the licensed patent. In short, the Korean Supreme Court held that absent special circumstance, a patent licensee is an “interested party” eligible for challenging the validity of a licensed patent, despite the lack of any threat or potential threat posed by the patent holder against the licensee’s right to use the patented invention. (Supreme Court En Banc Decision No. 2017Hu2819).

Mixed views on the issue
Under the Korean Patent Act, only an interested party may satisfy the standing requirement to initiate a patent invalidation trial. Regarding the interpretation of “interested party,” however, the Supreme Court’s long-held mixed views were that (i) the mere grant of a license does not automatically disqualify the licensee from being an interested party (See e.g., Supreme Court Decision No. 82Hu30 dated May 29, 2018); or that (ii) since a licensee enjoys the right to use the licensed patent during the licensing term, there is no actual or potential economic harm threatened against the licensee and therefore the licensee is not an interested party (See e.g., Supreme Court Decision No. 82Hu58 dated December 27, 1983).

To address this unsettled issue, the Supreme Court used this case as the vehicle to clarify the meaning of interested party by holding that any person who has a direct and actual interest in invalidating a patent (due to the risk of loss or damage that may be caused by the rights vested in the patented invention) is an interested party and this includes any person who manufactures or sells or will manufacture or sell using the licensed patent. The Supreme Court further held that pursuant to this legal principle, any person who uses a patent under a grant of license should be considered an interested party, despite the fact that there is no actual or potential threat posed by the patent holder regarding the licensee’s use of the licensed patent.

Supreme Court’s reasoning
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the fact that, (i) since patent licensees are generally subject to various restrictions under a license agreement (e.g., royalty payments and scope of license), they should be permitted a legal recourse for alleviating those burdens by being able to challenge the licensed patent; and that (ii) since challenging and invalidating a patent requires a significant amount of time and resources (even if the patent has a valid cause for invalidation), a person who wishes to use a patent without obtaining a license may postpone challenging the patent and choose to use the patent by obtaining a license first. The choice to obtain a license should not be a bar to challenging the patent later. In other words, obtaining a license does not constitute a waiver of right to challenge the licensed patent.
Significance of this case
With this en banc decision confirming the Supreme Court’s stance on licensee’s standing to challenge patent invalidity, royalty paying licensees are expected to revisit reviewing the possibility of invalidating licensed patents in an effort to avoid unfavorable royalty payment arrangements and remove unnecessary limitations on their use of the patented invention (considering various factors such as restrictive licensee-licensor relationship, rapid development of the relevant technology, or strong business prospects). For licensees, this means that the need for proper evaluation of the validity of a patent is more crucial than ever.

The Lee & Ko IP Practice Group is one of the largest and most prominent IP practices in Korea and is recognized by clients and adversaries alike as one of the strongest practices of its kind. From representing clients in Korea’s largest patent infringement cases and invalidity trials to helping clients evaluate patent invalidity, the Lee & Ko IP Practice Group has deep experience in a wide range of industries and remains the top choice in Korea and around the world.

─ CONTACT ─
김운호
Un Ho KIM
T:+82.2.772.4695
E:unho.kim
@leeko.com
Profile >
Tae H. KIM
Tae H. KIM
T:+82.2.6386.6656
E:taehyung.kim
@leeko.com
Profile>
For more information pertaining to this newsletter, please contact the attorneys identified on the right.
The Lee&Ko Legal Newsletter is provided for general information purposes only and should not be considered as the considered as the rendering of legal advice for any specific matter. If you no longer wish to receive our newsletter service, please click here or reply to this email stating UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. The contects and opinions expressed in the Lee&Ko Legal Newsletter are protected by law against any unauthorized use.
Newsletters by Sponsors 목록
No Title Date
217 [법무법인 광장] 포장재 재질·구조평가제도 시행 2020-01-09
216 [KCAB International] KCAB INTERNATIONAL Announces Arrivals and Departures 2019-12-27
215 [부스러기사랑나눔회] 따뜻한 사랑의 보금자리, 대전 민들레플러스 쉼터 2019-12-27
214 [부스러기사랑나눔회] 2019 어깨동무신나는집 발표회 "감사축제" 2019-12-18
213 [법무법인 광장] South Korea Enacts World’s First Law on P2P Financing 2019-12-13
212 [부스러기사랑나눔회] 즐거운 베트남 스승의 날! 2019-12-10
211 [부스러기사랑나눔회] 우덕재단과 함께하는 「즐거운 상상」 2019-12-03
210 [법무법인 광장] 상법상 자기거래의 ‘공정성’ 요건에 관한 구체적 판단 기준을 제시한 최초의 판례 2019-12-02
209 [부스러기사랑나눔회] 지역아동센터 선생님들을 응원합니다! 2019-11-26
208 [부스러기사랑나눔회] 부스러기의 캐릭터 친구 '부스러기나누미'를 소개합니다! 2019-11-19
207 [법무법인 광장] 회계업계의 당근과 채찍 2019-11-18
206 [법무법인 광장] 대법원, 제네릭 발매에 따른 ‘오리지널 의약품 약가인하고시’ 집행정지 인정 2019-11-13
205 [부스러기사랑나눔회] 합창단 활동과 함께 자신감도 성장하는 민들레 아이들 2019-11-12
204 [법무법인 광장] 온라인투자연계금융업 및 이용자 보호에 관한 법률(일명 “P2P금융업법”) 국회 본회의 통과 2019-11-06
203 [법무법인 광장] 「금융거래지표의 관리에 관한 법률」 제정안 국회 본회의 의결 2019-11-05
게시물 검색

In-House Counsel Forum

Address : 17F, 625, Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea | Registration Number : 107-82-14795 | Representative : CY Park

E-mail : reps@ihcf.co.kr | Tel : 02-6091-1998

Copyright(C) IHCF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

View mobile version.