유부공학에 관한 정확한 이해가 결여되면 기존의 특허권 범위 또는 기본발명과 이용발명 및 개량발명의 법리가 왜곡되고 결과적으로 유전공학적 발명의 의욕을 저하시킬 위험마저 있다. 유전공학의 급속한 발전을 계기로 하여 특허권 범위 또는 기본발명과 이용발명 및 개량발명의 법리에 대한 재검토가 이루어져야 할 것으로 생각된다. 특히 통상실시권허여심판제도는 잘 활용되지도 못하고 있지만, 현행 특허법의 관련조문도 `이용발명에서의 기술적 진보`라고 하는 애매모호한 기준을 정리하고 기본발명에 대한 특허권자의 이익을 보호해 줄 수 있는 제도적 장치로서 상호실시허락제도의 명문화를 적극적으로 검토하는 등 관련된 문제점이 보다 깊이 있게 논의되어야 할 때가 되었다. 그리고 유전공학의 발전 및 자연환경의 보호에 있어서 유전자원 또는 유전정보의 중요성이 인식됨에 따라서 유전자원이 풍부한 국가와 그렇지 못한 국가 그리고 후진국과 선진국 사이의 이해대립이 뚜렷해지고, 유전공학발명에 대한 특허권을 둘러싼 국가간 의견의 차이가 심각한 실정이다. 특히 유전공학발명에 대한 특허권의 제한이라거나 이용허락에 관한 국제규범의 변화추이를 면밀히 파악하고 검토해야 할 것이다.
Well balanced intellectual property laws are a highly significant component of technological innovation especially in the field of genetic engineering which requires enormous amounts of time, professional labour and money. However, despite substantial statutory amendments to strengthen intellectual property rights, it seems clear that with respect to frontier technologies like genetic engineering the current patent system may actually be stifling developments in that field and, also, be inefficient in preserving genetic resources. Two recent US cases, Scripps Clinic &Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 666 F. Supp. 1379 (N. D. Cal. 1987) and Genentech, Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., 14 U.S. P. Q. 2d 1363 (BNA) (D. Del.1990) illustrate serious difficulties and inappropriateness in applying both traditional doctrine of equivalents and reverse doctrine of equivalents to the scope of patents in genetic engineering inventions. Most of treaties on economic analysis of those two cases suggest that patent registration in the Patent and Trademark Office and patent scope interpretation in the federal courts should be adjusted to promote the progress of genetic engineering. The situation here in Korea could be worse especially because of terribly short history of patent protection for products like medical and chemical products and microorganisms. Relevant provisions in the Korean Patents Act on improvement invention and compulsory licenses may possibly constitute efficient guiding rules for balancing conflicting interests of product patent and process patent owners. Unfortunately, however, compulsory license to be granted for process patent owners requires the process to satisfy technological inventiveness over the product plus process invention. Questions arise as to whether and to what extent the technological inventiveness as a requisite for granting compulsory licenses are different from the inventiveness as a requites for granting patent registration. Balance of interests between product and process patent owners is also fundamentally questioned [344] in the sense that, while the process patent owners are granted a compulsory license to exploit previous patent including product inventions, similar system of compulsory licenses is not available to the patent owners of previous inventions who are arguably entitled to another compulsory license or cross license to exploit the improvement inventions. Finally, uncertainties still remain in assessing and ensuring a good balance of interests between developed and developing countries in the field of genetic resources of genetic information to be found only in tropical forests. In this context, the Rio Biodiversity Convention has built up a nexus between appropriate access and utilization of genetic resources, on the one hand, and appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, on the other. There have been hot debates on in what way the appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, which are subject to patents, could be realized and, more specifically, on to what extent compulsory licenses are permitted to this end.
(0)
(0)