후원로펌 뉴스레터

본문 바로가기

HOME > 후원로펌 현황 > 후원로펌 뉴스레터

후원로펌 현황

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

페이지 정보

작성일19-03-12 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.
후원로펌 뉴스레터 목록
번호 제목 날짜
2624 [법무법인(유) 광장] EU 공급망 실사지침(EU CSDDD) 관련 최근 입법 동향 2024-03-27
2623 [법무법인(유한) 태평양] 공급망 실사지침의 EU 이사회 통과 2024-03-25
2622 [법무법인(유한) 태평양] 보건복지부, ‘지출보고서’ 공개 운영 지침 발표 및 시사점 2024-03-25
2621 [법무법인(유) 율촌] 돌관공사비 클레임 프로세스 및 준비사항 2024-03-25
2620 [법무법인(유) 율촌] 對미국 에너지, 친환경 전기차 산업 투자 관련 대선 리스크 관리 전략 2024-03-25
2619 [법무법인(유) 율촌][율촌 입법 위클리 2024-09호] 22대 총선 주요 정당 정책 비교 등 첨부파일 2024-03-25
2618 [법무법인(유) 화우] 개인정보보호, 24년 주요이슈 분석 2024-03-22
2617 [법무법인(유) 화우] 게임유저 소송특례 게임산업법 개정안 발의 2024-03-22
2616 [법무법인(유) 화우] EU 의회, AI 법 가결 2024-03-22
2615 [법무법인(유) 화우] 여유자금 투자 방법을 정한 자산유동화계획에 따르지 않고 체결된 계약이 사법상 무효임을 확인한 최초의 대법원 판결(대법원2023다259262) 2024-03-22
2614 [법무법인(유) 화우] 美 SEC, 기후공시 의무화 규정 확정 2024-03-22
2613 [법무법인(유) 화우] 상장사 M&A 제도개선을 위한 1 공시강화, 2 외부평가제도 개선, 3 합병가액 산정규제 개선 2024-03-22
2612 [법무법인(유한) 태평양] 근로자파견 관련 최신 대법원판결의 시사점 2024-03-21
2611 [법무법인(유한) 태평양] 코리아 디스카운트 해소를 위한 일반주주 이익 보호 제도개선 동향 2024-03-21
2610 [법무법인(유한) 대륙아주] Weekly_Legislative_Report_Week_of_March_11_to_March_15_2024 2024-03-21
게시물 검색

사단법인 인하우스카운슬포럼 In-House Counsel Forum

주소 : 서울시 강남구 테헤란로 625, 17층 | 고유번호 : 107-82-14795| 대표자 : 박철영| 대표전화 : 02-6091-1998

E-mail : reps@ihcf.co.kr

Copyright(C) IHCF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

모바일 버전으로 보기