WTO 체제가 출범하면서 지적소유권에 관한 UR/TRIPs에 관한 문제가 중요한 통상문제로 등장하였으며 동 협정을 준수하기 위해서 특허법 개정이 불가피한 점이 인정된다. 이에따라 특허청은 특허법 개정안을 마련하였다. 우르과이라운드의 지적소유권 협정은 내국민대우의 원칙, 최혜국대우의 원칙을 일반원칙으로 하고 있으나 지적소유권 분야에 관해서는 몇몇의 예외가 인정된다. 협정상 특허의 대상이 되지 않는 것으로서 원자핵변환에 의한 물질과 식물이 있다. 특허법 개정안은 원자핵변환에 의한 물질을 특허대상에서 제외하고 있고, 식물에 대한 특허도 제한하고 있는바 이것의 타당성이 문제된다. 개정안은 “신기술의 조기인증제도의 도입”을 입법화한다는 차원에서, 특허출원일로부터 1년 6개월이 경과하기 이전이라도 출원인의 조기 공개의 요청이 있으면 출원공개를 하도록 하는 소위 조기공개제도를 도입하고 있다. 또한 명백히 UR/TRIPs 규정을 따르기 위하여, 개정안은 특허권의 존속기간을 출원일로부터 20년으로 한다고 규정하였다. 다만, 우리 개정안이 특허권의 존속기간을 특허출원일로부터 20년이라고 규정한 것이 다소 부정확한 표현이 아닌가 하는 의문이 있다.개정안은 특허발명의 강제실시 등을 규정하고 있다. 특히 불공정경쟁행위의 시정을 강제실시의 새로운 사유로 정하고 있는바, 그 의미와 실효성이 문제된다. 특허청이 마련한 특허법 개정안은 UR/TRIPs의 비준 내용에 따라 동 협정을 충실히 반영하고 있는 것으로서 강제실시허여제도를 체계화한점이 인정된다. 앞으로 특허행정의 전산화노력이 필요할 것이다.
In response to ratification by Korean as well as American Governments of the WTO Agreement including, as its Annex 1C, the `Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs),` the Korea Industrial Property Office (`KIPO`) has recently drafted its Patents Act Amendment Bill. The most distinctive feature of the Bill must be amendments made to compulsory licence provisions. Under the Bill, like under the current Act, compulsory licence may be granted to permit the exploitation of an improvement patent (for an improvement invention) which cannot be exploited without infringing the first patent (for the prior invention in relation to which substantial technical advance has been made to the improvement invention). Unlike the current Act, however, the Bill provides further that the owner of the first patent is also entitled to a cross-licence on reasonable terms to use the improvement invention. It is in accordance with Article 31 (1) of the WTO/TRIPs Agreement that the Bill attempts to encourage efficient exploitation of the improvement invention as well as the first one without any discrimination between the owners of improvement patent and the first patent. Another significant change in the compulsory licence provisions of the Bill is to grant compulsory licences to remedy a practice determined after judicial or administrative process to be anti-competitive. While this provision to remedy anti-competitive practice was designed to reflect Article 33 (k) of the WTO/TRIPs Agreement, it is not clear at all whether there will be any opportunity for the KIPO to grant compulsory licence to remedy anti-competitive practice. Under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(`MRFTA`) of Korea, which prevents among other things anti-competitive or unfair terms and conditions in licensing agreements, the Fair Trade Commission (`FTC`) may issue an appropriate order to remedy those anti-competitive or unfair trade practices. Even when a person brings a lawsuit to claim damages caused by anti-competitive or unfair practices, he or she should first make it sure that a remedial order was already rendered [193] by the FTC against those practices. It appears accordingly that the MRFTA confers the quasi-judicial power to remedy anti-competitive or unfair practices on the FTC and neither on any judicial courts nor on the KIPO. In view of those statutory provisions of the MFRTA, the compulsory licence provision to remedy anti-competitive practice under the Bill might be questioned. The Bill also made changes to statutory provisions on unpatentable subject matter, early publication of patent application, duration of patent right, and others. Under the Bill, `substance to be manufactured by a process to convert the atomic nucleus` has been removed from the list of unpatentable subject matter. The only unpatentable subject matter under the Bill is `invention which might disturb the public order or good public morals or which might be detrimental to the public hygiene`. Since the current Act allows only for patent protection for asexually reproducible plant varieties, it is still uncertain whether sexually reproducible plant varieties will be granted patent and, also, such uncertainty has not been answered in the Bill. The Bill also allows for an early publication of patent application so that a patent applicant may request an early publication even before 18 months from the date of application. By contrast, the current Act merely provides that the Administrator of the KIPO shall publish a patent application after 18 months from the date of application. The Administrator of the KIPO is not obliged, however, to publish its search report together with the patent application either under the current Act or under the Bill. The early publication of patent application and, eventually, the KIPO`s search report as well will partly depend upon computerization or digitalization of patent administration as a whole. Finally, t
(0)
(0)