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
2706 [법무법인(유) 세종] EU의 『역외보조금 규정』 운영 현황 및 시사점 2024-04-17
2705 [법무법인(유) 세종] Rating of Competition Compliance Program in Korea 2024-04-17
2704 [법무법인(유) 세종] 세종Law Focus - Vol.230 (2024.04.01~04.07) 2024-04-17
2703 [법무법인(유) 세종] 상장폐지절차 간소화 정책 및 업무사례 소개 2024-04-17
2702 [법무법인(유) 세종] 기업 밸류업 프로그램의 준비 – 3. 금융위, 기업밸류업·지배구조 우수기업 추가 인센티브 제도 및 상장기업 배당절차 개선현황 공개 2024-04-17
2701 [법무법인(유) 세종] 신탁형 집합투자기구의 집합투자업자 및 신탁업자에게 민법 제758조 제1항에 의한 공작물 점유자의 책임을 인정한 대법원 판결이 선고되었습니다 2024-04-17
2700 [법무법인(유) 세종] 세종Law Focus - Vol.229 (2024.03.25~03.31) 2024-04-17
2699 [법무법인(유) 세종] 가상자산 불공정거래에 신속고발∙통보(Fasttrack) 제도가 도입됩니다 2024-04-17
2698 [법무법인(유) 세종] 가맹분야 불공정거래행위 심사지침 제정·시행과 그 시사점 2024-04-17
2697 [법무법인(유) 세종] 토지 취득 이후 불리하게 변경된 감면조례에 따라 추징된 취득세, 재산세를 취소시킨 사례 2024-04-17
2696 [법무법인(유) 세종] 월간 노동 뉴스레터 2024-04-17
2695 [법무법인(유) 세종] Advanced Disclosure of Insider Transactions in Korea 2024-04-17
2694 [법무법인(유) 율촌] 징역 2년 선고 중대재해처벌법 위반 판결 - 자동차부품 업체 A사 대표이사 실형선고(징역 2년) 2024-04-13
2693 [법무법인(유) 율촌] 尹錫悦大統領の労働改革:2年間の変化と総選挙後の展望 2024-04-13
2692 [법무법인(유) 율촌] President Yoon and Labor: Two-Year Recap and the Road Ahead 2024-04-13
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