특허침해소송이 제기된 이후 소극적 권리범위확인심판 청구를 제한할 필요성에 관한 소고

Abstract

Given the intent and practical utility of the patent right scope confirmation system, the necessity to maintain this system should be acknowledged. However, it is questionable whether the interests of confirming the scope in cases where infringement lawsuits have already been filed, leaving only the main judgment, or even after a final judgment has been rendered, should be acknowledged. In such cases, there may be opportunities for parties to exploit the patent scope confirmation trial to delay disputes. In practice and the Supreme Court, except for exceptional cases such as seeking confirmation of the scope concerning patents that have expired or are not being implemented by the parties, the interests of confirming the scope of patent in trials and lawsuit are recognized. However, considering the legal nature, effectiveness, and relationship with related infringement lawsuits under patent law, it should not be overlooked that in some cases, it may be more efficient to restrict this process. Excessive requests for patent scope confirmation trials can burden parties with excessive time or costs and result in unnecessary waste in the national litigation system. Rather than generally recognizing the interests of confirmation based on the necessity or independence of the system, it is necessary to assess the interests of confirmation from the perspective of whether it is an effective and appropriate means for resolving specific disputes. While acknowledging the intent and function of the patent scope confirmation system, it is necessary to limit requests for confirmation of the scope by assessing ‘the presence or absence of interests of confirmation’. For instance, when a related infringement lawsuit has already been filed and has progressed to the point of hearings, there is no need to recognize the interests of negative patent scope confirmation, which would impose dual litigation burdens and delay on the parties and waste the court's time and resources on ineffective disputes. Furthermore, when patent scope confirmation and related infringement lawsuits run concurrently, each procedure is independent and not binding, which can lead to conflicting conclusions and undermine confidence in the patent system and the judicial system. Moreover, with the 2016 amendment to the Civil Procedure Act, where appeals of nullification lawsuits and infringement lawsuits are under the jurisdiction of the Patent Court, and both procedures are simultaneously litigated, the situation has become less prone to inconsistency or undermining. Therefore, recognizing ‘the interests of patent scope confirmation’, even in cases like the one mentioned, should be limited, and a restrictive interpretation should be applied.