로션 _ 정지명령 불응 도주하던 포르쉐 방호벽 ‘꽝’···운전자 중상 | 군포철쭉축제

와이즈만 과학자들은 1988년 봄 자신들의 결과를 학술지 투고를 위한 논문 형태로 작성한 다음 논문 발행 전에 논문 초안을 Schlessinger 교수(과거 와이즈만에서 근무 했지만 Meloy 연구소에서 안식년 중이었는데, Meloy는 후에 이 사건 당사자인 Rorer 그룹에 합병됨)에게 송부했다. Schlessinger 박사는 와이즈만에게 실험에 사용할 두 개 의 모노클로날 항체(자신과 그 팀이 Meloy에서 개발한 것임)를 제공하였는데 이 항체 들이 (와이즈만 과학자들이 자신들의 발견이라고 주장하는) 상승효과에 어떤 역할을 했는지에 대해서는 당사자 간에 다툼이 있다.

909) Markem v Zipher [2005] R.P.C. 31; CIPA Guide Sixth Edition §7.08 and §37.05. 910) CIPA Guide Seventh Edition §7.08 (“Notwithstanding that, by s.125, the invention for which a patent has been granted is to be taken as that specified in the claims of the patent, the court will not just look at the form of the claims of a pending application to decide what the invention is and who is the deviser of that invention. Moreover, the issue of inventorship can arise even before an application has been filed, or where an application has been filed but no claims have yet been formulated. The Court of Appeal recognised in Markem v Zipher that patent attorneys often draft a first set of claims very broadly so as to get the most out of the search and claims will be amended prior to grant. The issue for the court will be to see what is “the heart” of the invention, even though there may be more than “one heart”, and each claim may not need to be considered a separate “heart” on its own.”); CIPA Guide Seventh Edition §37.05 (“Entitlement is no longer to be decided on a claim by claim basis. Following the Court of Appeal in Markem v Zipher [2005] R.P.C. 31; [2005] EWCA Civ 267, the issue for the court will be to see what is “the heart of the invention” and, even though there may be more than “one heart”, that may not mean that each claim is “a heart”. This is discussed at §7.08.”). 구성요소 부가 특허출원에 의한 영업비밀 기술탈취 방지를 위한 특허법의 공동발명 개선안 연구 350 인정판단에 있어서 선행기술이 고려될 수 있는 것으로 해석되고 있다.911) 모인 판단 시 특허의 유무효가 문제될 수 있는지에 대해 종래 견해는, 모인이 문제 된 발명이 특허요건을 충족하는 여부는 고려될 필요가 없다고 보았지만, 최근 판례에 의해 이러한 실무가 변경된 것으로 보이는데, 특허요건을 충족하지 못한 발명에 대해 귀속 여부를 다툴 실익이 없다는 점을 설시한 판결이 있다.912) 다. 모인출원 특허에 대한 정당한 권리자의 구제 영국은 무권리자 출원 특허에 대한 정당한 권리자의 구제수단으로 이전청구제도 911) Yeda v Rhone Poulenc [2008] R.P.C. 1; UKHL 43, Markem v Zipher [2005] R.P.C. 31; CIPA Guide Sixth Edition §7.08 and §37.04. 912) CIPA Guide Seventh Edition §7.08 (“Issues of validity of claims will be relevant: especially where claim 1 is overly broad. Traditionally entitlement was determined according to the alleged inventor’s perception of what he had discovered, rather than what might turn out in the light of the prior art actually to have been invented. In other words, validity considerations are not generally to be taken into account in assessing entitlement questions and “invention” in this context should not mean a “patentable invention”, see Norris’s Patent [1988] R.P.C. 159 and Viziball’s Application [1988] R.P.C. 213. . . . However, two particular decisions have changed this practice. In Yeda v Rhône-Poulenc Rorer [2008] R.P.C. 1; [2007] UKHL 43, Lord Hoffmann held that s.7(2) provided an exhaustive code to entitlement to the grant of a patent. Section 7(3) defined the inventor as “the actual deviser of the invention”, and so it was necessary to distinguish between the person who had made the invention and the person who had made a non-inventive contribution.“Deciding upon inventorship will therefore involve assessing the evidence adduced by the parties as to the nature of the inventive concept and who contributed to it. In some cases this may be quite complex because the inventive concept is a relationship of discontinuity between the claimed invention and the prior art. Inventors themselves will often not know exactly where it lies.” Also, in Markem v Zipher [2005] R.P.C. 31, the Court of Appeal felt that, as a matter of convenience, if a claim was clearly and unarguably invalid, then not only could the Comptroller take that into account when exercising his wide discretion, and deal accordingly with such claims, he ought to do so as there was no point in “handing rights in an invalid monopoly from one side to another” and “the sooner an obviously invalid monopoly is removed, the better from the public point of view”. Where there was “self-evidently no bone”, the “dogs [should] be prevented from fighting over it”. So Jacob L.J. concluded:“if an inherent part of a claim to entitlement is also an assertion of or acceptance of invalidity, the entitlement claim must fail.” The Hearing Officer proceeded to consider this aspect of Markem in Statoil v University of Southampton BL O/204/05 and found that the principle applied where either of the parties to the entitlement dispute raised the question of validity, and the defendant “should not be allowed to get away with pleading invalidity as an inherent part of his defence”. Thus, questions of patentability can now be raised pre-grant in entitlement proceedings and previous cases to the contrary will no longer be good law. However, care may be needed in applying this where the invention in question is patentable in an overseas jurisdiction but not patentable in the UK (e.g. because it relates to computer software or a method of doing business—as in LIFFE v Pinkava [2007] R.P.C. 30; [2007] EWCA Civ 217).”); CIPA Guide Seventh Edition §37.06 (“Although the traditional position was that validity should not be taken into consideration when deciding questions of entitlement (Norris’s Patent), this did not mean that there was no need to look for any contribution from the referrer to the very feature which distinguishes the claims of the contested application/patent from the prior art (Derbyshire Maid’s Patent BL O/40/97). Now, following Markem v Zipher, the issue can be explored, even without a request for revocation, and where there is a clear and unarguable attack, then there is no point in the Comptroller passing such claims from the defendant to the claimant: see the discussion at §7.08.”). 특허법상 모인(冒認) 법리 351 와 출원일소급제도를 모두 마련하고 있다.

특허법상 모인(冒認) 법리 337 리자가 피모인 구성요소에 대해 보호받는 것이 가능할 것이라고 한다. 1) 공동발명자 인정기준 발명자는 기술적 사상의 중요 부분을 창작한 자이다.110) 2) 공동발명자 간의 지분율산정 공동발명자가 그 발명의 완성에 공헌한 정도에 따라 지분율이 결정되는 것이 당연 하다.111) 일반적으로 다음 사항을 종합적으로 참작하여 해당 발명에 공헌한 정도를 산 정하여 공동발명자 각자의 지분을 결정해야 한다.

다만, 중요한 부분 또는 지배적인 부분이 아니면서도 (공지기술에서 발견되지 않는) 신규한 부분의 창작에 기여한 자를 공동발명자로 인정할 수 있는지가 쟁점이다. 그런 점에서 대상 판결은 중요한 쟁점은 외면하고 당연한 바를 설시하고 있다. 만약 대상 판결이 중요한 부분 또는 지배적인 부분의 창작에 기여하지 못한 자는 공동발명자가 아니라는 법리를 제시하는 것이라면,483) 대상 판결은 지나치게 엄격한 기준을 설정하 는 잘못된 판결이 된다.

4) 발명자 판단기준에서 신규성, 진보성 등 특허요건을 갖추어야 하는지 여부 떡을 내장하는 과자 및 그 제조방법에 관한 발명에 관한 사건의 2심 법원 및 대법 원에서 발명자를 인정받기 위해 신규성 및 진보성의 요건을 구비하여야 하는지 여부 에 대하여 대립된 견해를 판시하였다.