삶의지혜 _ 방통위, 지역·중소방송 콘텐츠 강화…11개사 31억원 지원 | 군포철쭉축제

2018년 12월 20일 ○ 주관연구기관명 : 충남대학교 산학협력단 ○ 연 구 기 간 : 2018. 8. 31. ~ 12. 30. ○ 주관연구책임자 : 충남대학교 김 동 준 ○ 참여연구원 ․연 구 원 : 성균관대학교 정 차 호 ․연구보조원 : 성균관대학교 문 려 화 ․연구보조원 : 충남대학교 홍 승 희 i 구성요소 부가 특허출원에 의한 영업비밀 기술탈취 방지를 위한 특허법의 공동발명 개선안 연구 목 차 제1장 서론 ····························································································································17 제2장 기술탈취 관련 법규의 현황 및 문제점 ·························································23 I. 특허법 외의 관련 법규 ····································································································25 1. 부정경쟁방지법 ·················································································································25 2. 하도급법 ·····························································································································27 3. 상생협력법 ·························································································································32 4. 중소기업기술보호법 ·········································································································33 5. 현행 법규의 한계(문제의 제기) ·····················································································34 II. 특허법 ·································································································································43 1. 관련 규정 ···························································································································43 2. 현행 규정의 한계(문제의 제기) ·····················································································45 제3장 공동발명자 판단 법리 및 공동발명자 간의 지분율 산정방법에 관한 우리나라, 일본, 미국, 중국 및 독일의 법리 연구 ·················································47 I. 우리나라의 공동발명자 판단 법리 및 공동발명자 간의 지분율 산정방법 ··········49 1. 공동발명자 판단 법리 ···································································································49 2. 공동발명자 간의 지분율 산정 ·······················································································64 II. 일본의 공동발명자 판단 법리 및 공동발명자 간의 지분율 산정방법 ·················68 1. 발명자의 인정기준 ·········································································································68 2. 공동발명자의 인정기준 ···································································································75 3. 공동발명자 간의 지분율 ·································································································81 III. 미국의 공동발명자 판단 법리 및 공동발명자 간의 지분율 산정방법 ··············104 1. 발명자 판단 법리 ···········································································································104 2. 공동발명자 판단 법리 ···································································································109 3. 공동발명자 인정을 위한 주관적 의사(교환)의 필요성 여부 ·································113 4. 미국의 공동발명자 판단 관련 여러 기준 ·································································118 5. 공동발명자 여부와 모인 ·······························································································119 ii IV. 중국의 공동발명자 판단 법리 및 공동발명자 간의 지분율 산정방법 ·············121 1. 중국의 공동발명자 법리 ·······························································································121 2. 공동발명자의 법리 ·········································································································125 3. 중국의 첨부 법리 ···········································································································127 V. 대만의 공동발명자 판단 법리 및 공동발명자 간의 지분율 산정방법 ··············133 1. 발명자 인정기준 ·············································································································133 2. 공동발명자의 인정기준 법리 ·······················································································134 VI. 독일의 공동발명자 판단 법리 및 공동발명자 간의 지분율 산정방법 ·············140 1. 공동발명자 판단 법리 ···································································································140 제4장 발명자‧공동발명자 판단 법리에 대한 연구 ···············································145 I. 발명자 여부를 판단하기 위한 관련 법리의 연구 ····················································147 1. 서론 ···································································································································147 2. 착상과 구체화의 개념 명확화 ·····················································································147 3. 발명의 완성 시점: 실시 가능 시점 v. 효과 결정 시점 ·········································157 4. 청구항을 기준으로 하는 발명자 판단 ·······································································159 5. 결론 ···································································································································168 II. 공동발명자 사이에 (객관적 기여 외에) 주관적 의사교환이 필요한지 여부: 모인 발명을 중심으로 ··················································································································168 1. 서론 ···································································································································169 2. 기존의 상반된 견해 ·······································································································170 3. 모인 후 변경된 발명에서의 공동발명자 인정 사례 연구 ·····································172 4. 시나리오 연구 ·················································································································184 5. 공동발명자 판단을 위한 주관적 요건 법리의 구축 ···············································187 6. 민법의 첨부(添附) 법리: 주관적 요건 불필요 ·························································190 7. 특허법 개정방안 ·············································································································192 8. 결론 ···································································································································196 III. 공동발명자 간 지분율(share rates) 산정방법 ·························································198 1. 서론 ···································································································································198 2. 1975년 小林健男론 ·········································································································198 3. 1999년의 Tigran Guledjian 방법: 청구항 수를 기준으로 하는 방법 ··················202 4. 2007년 정차호 산정방법 ·······························································································203 5. 2012년 일본의 影山光太郎(카게야마 코우타로우) 이론 ·········································205 6. 일본의 공동발명자 지분율을 산정한 판례 연구 ·····················································214 7. 우리나라의 공동발명자 지분율을 산정한 판례 연구 ·············································231 8. 공동발명자 지분율 산정방법 제안 ·············································································242 9. 결론 ···································································································································246 iii 제5장 특허법상 모인(冒認) 법리 ················································································251 I. 우리나라 ····························································································································253 1. 모인의 의의 ·····················································································································253 2. 모인출원‧특허의 거절‧무효 ····························································································254 3. 모인출원‧특허에 대한 정당한 권리자의 구제 ··························································280 4. 모인자 기여의 취급 ·······································································································285 II. 주요국의 법리 ·················································································································289 1. 일본 ···································································································································289 2. 미국 ···································································································································309 3. 독일 ···································································································································326 4. 영국 ···································································································································347 III. 정리 ··································································································································363 1. 모인의 의의 ·····················································································································363 2. 모인 출원‧특허의 거절‧무효 ··························································································364 3. 모인 출원‧특허에 대한 정당한 권리자의 구제 ························································364 4. 모인자 기여의 취급 ·······································································································365 제6장 모인 및 정당한 권리자 구제 관련 제도개선방안 ···································367 I. 모인 시 거절‧무효의 범위 ·····························································································369 1. 우리나라의 법리 ·············································································································369 2. 주요국의 법리 ·················································································································377 3. 개선방안 ···························································································································378 II. 모인자 기여 시 공동발명 인정 여부 ·········································································383 1. 우리나라의 법리 ·············································································································383 2. 주요국의 법리 ·················································································································384 3. 개선방안 ···························································································································387 4. 공유 관련 문제 ···············································································································395 III. 정당한 권리자의 구제 관련 검토 ··············································································399 1. 우리나라의 법리 ·············································································································399 2. 주요국의 법리 ·················································································································400 3. 개선방안 ···························································································································400 4. 정리 ···································································································································402 IV. 소결론: 해석론에 의한 대응 ······················································································403 V. 입법적 해결방안(보론) ··································································································407 1. 방안 1: 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리 규정 개정(공동발명자 정의 無) ··················407 2. 방안 2: 무권리자 출원‧특허에 대한 특허요건 특례 신설 ·····································411 iv 3. 방안 3: 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리의 공유 규정 개정 ··········································414 4. 모인 상황에서의 출원 분할 방안 ···············································································419 제7장 결론 ··························································································································423 v <표 차례> <표 1> 하도급거래 공정화법 개정 경위 ········································································29 <표 2> 기술탈취 관련 법규(보호대상 및 위반행위 비교) ··········································34 <표 3> 기술탈취 관련 법규(위반행위에 대한 제재 비교) ··········································36 <표 4> 중소기업 기술탈취 근절대책(18. 2. 중기부/산자부/공정위/특허청) ··············40 <표 5> 기술적 사상에 대한 기존이론과의 비교(影山) ··················································89 <표 6> 발명의 분류(影山) ····································································································90 <표 7> 원리·모델의 구분, 예측난이성, 중요성(影山) ·················································97 <표 8> 지분율 산정기준(影山) ··························································································100 <표 9> 발명자 판단 기준(Chisum) ···················································································119 <표 10> 갑이 a를 착상하고 을이 그 착상을 모인한 후 b 착상을 추가한 경우의 처 리 ············································································································································120 <표 11> 착상과 구체화(조영선 교수 설명) ····································································155 <표 12> 착상과 구체화 법리 제안 ··················································································156 <표 13> 공동발명 관련 가상사례 1 ················································································185 <표 14> 공동발명 관련 가상사례 2 ················································································186 <표 15> 공동발명 정의규정 제안(김승군·김선정) ······················································193 <표 16> 공동발명 정의규정 제안(정차호) ······································································193 <표 17> 원리·모델의 구분, 예측난이성, 중요성(影山) ·············································210 <표 18> 원리 및/또는 모델의 관여자: 2가지 경우(影山) ···········································211 <표 19> 발명자의 지분율 산정방법(影山) ······································································212 <표 20> 知財高裁 平成19年(ネ)第10056号 判決의 사안 ··············································227 <표 21> 지분율 산정 사례(서울중앙지방법원 2013가합517131 판결) ······················233 <표 22> 지분율 산정 가상사례(정차호 산정방법) ························································245 <표 23> 특허법원 2015허1430 판결(모인 여부 판단) ················································266 <표 24> 특허법원 2014허7707 판결(모인 여부 판단) ················································269 <표 25> 모인 여부 판단 특허법원 판결 정리 ······························································275 <표 26> 특허법 제35조에 따른 정당한 권리자 출원 사안(10-2010-21941) ············281 <표 27> 출원일소급제도/특허권이전청구제도에 있어서 동일성에 대한 학설 ·······288 <표 28> 동일성에 대한 학설 비교 ··················································································289 <표 29> 모인대상발명과 특허발명의 대비(東京地裁 平成13年(ワ)第13678号) ·······291 <표 30> 피고발명과 특허발명의 관계(知財高裁 平成17年(行ケ)第10193号) ···········292 <표 31> 미국 CAFC Oddzon 판결 사안 ·········································································313 <표 32> 모인의 의의(주요국 비교) ················································································363 <표 33> 모인 출원‧특허의 거절‧무효(주요국 비교) ····················································364 <표 34> 모인 출원‧특허에 대한 정당한 권리자의 구제(주요국 비교) ···················364 <표 35> 모인자 기여의 취급(주요국 비교) ··································································365 vi <표 36> 모인 여부 판단기준 관련 특허법원 판결의 동향 ········································369 <표 37> 대법원 2009후2463 판결의 의미에 대한 학설 ··············································371 <표 38> 발명자의 의의(AIPPI 보고서) ············································································388 <표 39> 주요국의 공동발명 성립요건 비교 ··································································391 <표 40> 특허권 이전청구 규정 비교(우리나라와 일본) ··············································393 <표 41> 공유특허의 지분활용에 대한 주요국 제도 현황 ··········································397 <표 42> 공유특허의 분할청구에 대한 주요국 제도 현황 ··········································397 <표 43> 종합검토(피모인자와 모인자의 공유 인정 시) ··············································403 <표 44> 종합검토(피모인자와 모인장의 공유 불인정 시) ··········································406 <표 45> 특허법 개정방안(방안 1) ····················································································407 <표 46> 특허법 개정방안(방안 2) ····················································································412 <표 47> 특허법 개정방안(방안 3-1) ················································································415 <표 48> 특허법 개정방안(방안 3-2) ················································································416 <표 49> 특허법 개정방안(출원 단계 중 분리 이전 방안) ··········································419 <그림 차례> [그림 1] 발명자/공동발명자의 인정 및 지분율 산정의 기본적인 절차(影山) ········103 [그림 2] 발명자/공동발명자의 인정 및 지분율 산정의 기본적인 절차(影山) ········213 요약서(Summary) 1 <<구성요소 부가 특허출원에 의한 영업비밀 기술탈취 방지를 위한 특허법의 공동발명 개선안 연구>> 요약서(Summary) 제1장 서론 본 “구성요소 부가 특허출원에 의한 영업비밀 기술탈취 방지를 위한 특허법의 공 동발명 개선안 연구”의 보고서는 기술탈취 문제에 효과적으로 대응하기 위해 특허제 도개선이 필요한지 여부와 관련하여, 제2장에서는 기술탈취 관련 법규의 현황 및 문 제점에 대해, 제3장 및 제4장에서는 우리나라와 주요국의 발명자 공동 발명자 판단 법리 및 제도개선방안에 대해, 제5장 및 제6장에서는 우리나라와 주요국의 특허법상 모인(冒認) 법리 및 제도개선방안에 대해 연구하였는데, 이하 연구결과를 요약한다.

733) 특허법원 2015. 10. 8. 선고 2014허7707 판결(“이 사건 제1항 발명의 벤딩테이블 구성 , 캐리지, 베이스프레 임, 고주파가열기 및 벤딩테이블 상호간의 배치구조에 관한 구성 은 모인대상발명에 명시되어 있지는 않지만, 통상의 기술자가 보통으로 채용하는 정도의 기술적 구성에 불과한 것이고, 이로 인해 특별한 작용효과가 발생 한다고 볼 수 없어서, 이 사건 제1항 정정발명은 원고가 그 기술적 사상의 창작에 실질적으로 기여한 것이라 고 볼 수 없다.”). 734) 특허법원 2015. 10. 8. 선고 2014허7707 판결(“이 사건 정정발명은 모인대상발명과 실질적으로 동일하고, 원 고가 모인대상발명의 발명자 또는 그 승계인이 아님에도 이 사건 정정발명에 대한 특허출원을 한 것”). 구성요소 부가 특허출원에 의한 영업비밀 기술탈취 방지를 위한 특허법의 공동발명 개선안 연구 272 <사안의 개요> 원고는 이 사건 특허발명의 특허권자인 피고를 상대로, 이 사건 특허발명은 모인 출원에 해당한다고 주장하면서 등록무효심판을 청구하였는데, 특허심판원은 (i) 이 사 건 특허발명은 원고가 주장하는 모인대상발명과 서로 다른 발명이고, (ii) 이 사건 특 허발명의 출원인인 피고는 진정한 발명자로부터 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 승계받 은 정당한 출원인으로서, 이 사건 특허발명은 모인출원에 해당하지 아니한다는 이유 로 원고의 청구를 기각하는 이 사건 심결을 하였다(특허심판원 2017. 6. 16.자 2015당 3649 심결). 이 사건 모인대상발명은, 원고가 금형제조업체인 수창 ENG를 운영하는 D에게 볼 밸브용 볼 라이닝 장치 금형의 제작을 위탁하고, D가 다시 금형설계업체인 샵몰드컴 퓨터 측에 위 금형의 설계를 위탁하여 제작된 설계도면에 개시된 볼밸브용 볼 라이닝 장치에 관한 기술이다.

제34조(무권리자의 특허출원과 정당한 권리 자의 보호) 발명자가 아닌 자로서 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리의 승계인이 아닌 자(이 하 "무권리자"라 한다)가 한 특허출원이 제 33조 제1항부터 제4항에 따른 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지지 아니한 사유로 제 62조제2호에 해당하여 특허를 받지 못하게 된 경우에는 그 무권리자의 특허출원 후에 한 정당한 권리자의 특허출원은 무권리자 가 특허출원한 때에 특허출원한 것으로 본 다. 다만, 무권리자가 특허를 받지 못하게 된 날부터 30일이 지난 후에 정당한 권리 자가 특허출원을 한 경우에는 그러하지 아 니하다. 제35조(무권리자의 특허와 정당한 권리자의 보호) 제33조제1항 본문에 따른 특허를 받 을 수 있는 권리를 가지지 아니한 사유로 제133조제1항제2호에 해당하여 특허를 무 효로 한다는 심결이 확정된 경우에는 그 무권리자의 특허출원 후에 한 정당한 권리 자의 특허출원은 무효로 된 그 특허의 출 원 시에 특허출원한 것으로 본다. 다만, 심 결이 확정된 날부터 30일이 지난 후에 정 제35조(무권리자의 특허와 정당한 권리자의 보호) 제33조 제1항부터 제4항에 따른 특허 를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지지 아니한 사 유로 제133조제1항제2호에 해당하여 특허 를 무효로 한다는 심결이 확정된 경우에는 그 무권리자의 특허출원 후에 한 정당한 권리자의 특허출원은 무효로 된 그 특허의 출원 시에 특허출원한 것으로 본다. 다만, 심결이 확정된 날부터 30일이 지난 후에 모인 및 정당한 권리자 구제 관련 제도개선방안 409 현행 특허법 특허법 개정안 당한 권리자가 특허출원을 한 경우에는 그 러하지 아니하다. 정당한 권리자가 특허출원을 한 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다. 제62조(특허거절결정) 심사관은 특허출원이 다음 각 호의 어느 하나의 거절이유(이하 " 거절이유"라 한다)에 해당하는 경우에는 특 허거절결정을 하여야 한다. 1. 제25조ㆍ제29조ㆍ제32조ㆍ제36조제1항부 터 제3항까지 또는 제44조에 따라 특허를 받을 수 없는 경우 2. 제33조제1항 본문에 따른 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지지 아니하거나 같은 항 단서에 따라 특허를 받을 수 없는 경우 3. ~ 7. (생략) 제62조(특허거절결정) 심사관은 특허출원이 다음 각 호의 어느 하나의 거절이유(이하 " 거절이유"라 한다)에 해당하는 경우에는 특 허거절결정을 하여야 한다. 1. 제25조ㆍ제29조ㆍ제32조ㆍ제36조제1항부 터 제3항까지 또는 제44조에 따라 특허를 받을 수 없는 경우 2. 제33조 제1항부터 제4항에 따른 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지지 아니하거나 제33조 제5항에 따라 특허를 받을 수 없는 경우 3. ~ 7. (생략) 제133조(특허의 무효심판) ① 이해관계인 (제2호 본문의 경우에는 특허를 받을 수 있 는 권리를 가진 자만 해당한다) 또는 심사 관은 특허가 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해 당하는 경우에는 무효심판을 청구할 수 있 다. 이 경우 청구범위의 청구항이 둘 이상 인 경우에는 청구항마다 청구할 수 있다. 1. 제25조, 제29조, 제32조, 제36조제1항부 터 제3항까지, 제42조제3항제1호 또는 같은 조 제4항을 위반한 경우 2. 제33조제1항 본문에 따른 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지지 아니하거나 제44조 를 위반한 경우. 다만, 제99조의2제2항에 따라 이전등록된 경우에는 제외한다. 3. 제33조제1항 단서에 따라 특허를 받을 수 없는 경우 4. ~ 8. (생략) ② ~ ④ (생략) 제133조(특허의 무효심판) ① 이해관계인 (제2호 본문의 경우에는 특허를 받을 수 있 는 권리를 가진 자만 해당한다) 또는 심사 관은 특허가 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해 당하는 경우에는 무효심판을 청구할 수 있 다. 이 경우 청구범위의 청구항이 둘 이상 인 경우에는 청구항마다 청구할 수 있다. 1. 제25조, 제29조, 제32조, 제36조제1항부 터 제3항까지, 제42조제3항제1호 또는 같은 조 제4항을 위반한 경우 2. 제33조제1항부터 제4항에 따른 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지지 아니하거나 제44조를 위반한 경우. 다만, 제99조의2제2 항에 따라 이전등록된 경우에는 제외한다. 3. 제33조제5항에 따라 특허를 받을 수 없 는 경우 4. ~ 8. (생략) ② ~ ④ (생략) 나. 검토 현행 특허법 제33조는, 제1항 본문에서 발명을 한 사람 또는 그 승계인은 이 법에 서 정하는 바에 따라 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가짐을 규정하고 있고, 제1항 단서 에서 특허청 직원 및 특허심판원 직원은 상속이나 유증(遺贈)의 경우를 제외하고는 재 구성요소 부가 특허출원에 의한 영업비밀 기술탈취 방지를 위한 특허법의 공동발명 개선안 연구 410 직 중 특허를 받을 수 없다는 점을 규정하고 있으며, 제2항에서 공동발명의 경우 특허 를 받을 수 있는 권리를 공유함을 규정하고 있다. 개정안은 위와 같은 내용을 그대로 유지하되, ① 모인대상발명으로부터 통상의 기 술자가 쉽게 발명할 수 있는 발명에 대해서는 정당한 권리자가 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가진다는 점 및 ② 피모인자와 모인자의 공동 기여가 인정되는 경우 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 공유한다는 점을 항을 신설하여 규정하면서 제1항 단서의 내용 을 위치 이동하는 것인데 다음과 같은 특징이 있다. 우선 모인의 성립 범위(모인 시 거절‧무효의 범위)가 넓게 된다. 즉, 특허법 제29조 제2항 특허요건(진보성) 판단의 기준인 ‘그 발명이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식 을 가진 사람이 쉽게 발명할 수 있는’지 여부를 모인 판단 시에도 활용함으로써 기술 탈취 후 모인자 명의로 특허를 받는 것을 방지한다는 소극적 측면에서 정당한 권리자 의 보호를 강화할 수 있는 장점이 있다. 또한, 상대적으로 사례가 많이 축적된 진보성 판단 기준을 활용함으로써 ‘실질적 기여’ 기준의 단점 즉, ‘실질적 기여’의 의미가 불 명확하다는1045) 점을 상당 부분 극복할 수 있는 장점도 있다. 나아가 모인의 성립 범 위와 정당한 권리자의 구제 범위를 일치시킬 수 있는 장점도 있다. 왜냐하면 ‘모인대 상발명으로부터 통상의 기술자가 쉽게 발명할 수 있는 발명’에 대해서는 정당한 권리 자가 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가진다는 점을 분명히 하여 모인자가 특허 받을 수 없다는 점뿐만 아니라 해당 발명에 대한 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리는 피모인자인 정 당한 권리자에게 귀속됨이 분명하게 되기 때문이다. 다음으로 피모인자와 모인자의 공동 기여 시의 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리의 공유 를 인정하는 특례 규정을 마련함으로써 일반적인 공동발명 성립 요건에 대한 수정 없 이 입법적 해결이 가능하게 된다. 즉, 공동발명은 모인 외에도 다양한 장면에서 성립 할 수 있는 개념이므로 그 성립 요건을 신중히 검토할 필요가 있는데, ‘주관적 공동’ 요건을 명문으로 삭제함으로 인한 부정적 측면을 충분히 검토하지 못한 상황에서 무 리하게 공동발명의 개념을 수정하는 것보다는 공동발명 외에 특허를 받을 수 있는 권 리의 공유가 성립할 수 있는 예외적인 경우를 제33조에 마련함으로써 이러한 문제점 을 해소할 수 있는 장점이 있다. 다만, 피모인자와 모인자의 공동 기여가 인정되어 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리가 공 1045) 대법원 2009후2463 판결에서 예시적 기준으로 제시된 ‘통상의 기술자가 보통으로 채용하는 정도의 기술적 구성의 부가·삭제·변경에 지나지 않고 그로 인하여 발명의 작용효과에 특별한 차이를 일으키지 않는 경우’ 등 의 의미가 반드시 명확하지는 않다.

4. "대상기관"이란 산업기술을 보유한 기업·연구기관·전문기관·대학 등을 말한다.

마) 5단계: 계산식 적용하여 지분율 결정 위 1 내지 4단계가 종료되면 그 이후에는 주어진 계산식에 의하여 단순히 지분율 을 계산하기만 하면 된다. 청구항이 n개인 경우, 모든 청구항에 대하여 위에서 제시된 지분율을 구한 후 각 청구항에서의 지분율을 합한 다음 청구항 개수 n으로 나누어서 총 지분율을 구한다.

802) 갑 7 발명은 본건발명과 동일한 발명이라고는 할 수 없다. 하지만 종래기술과 같이 외통의 내주면에 조구 (条溝)를 형성하는 것 대신, 외통에 삽입하는 축의 외주면에 조구(条溝)를 형성하였다고 하는 점에 있어서 본 건발명과 갑 7 발명은 공통하는 것이며, 또한 가공 및 사용 후의 세정을 용이하게 한다고 하는 작용효과에 있 어서도 격별하게 다른 것은 없다. 그리고 갑 7 발명에 있어서도 조구(条溝)가 형성되고 있는 축상의 이너 슬 리브(inner sleeve)가 삽입되어 잇는 후반부분(출구측)에 있어서 팥소 등의 유동성이 낮은 가소성 식품을 블레 이드와 동시에 회전하지 않고 외통의 선단에 설치된 송출구에 이송하여 그 전방에 송출하는 것이 가능하다고 하는 작용효과를 나타내는 것은 그 구성으로부터 분명하다. 본건발명에서는 ‘전기 축의 외주면과 전기 외통의 내주면에 내연(内縁)과 외연(外縁)이 각각 미끄럼접촉(摺接)하여 회전하는 나선상의 송출용 블레이드를 축과 외통 사이에 개재시켜’라고 하고 있는바, 갑 7 발명에서는 ‘전기 이너 슬리브(inner sleeve)의 외주면과 전기 외통의 내주면에 내연에 설치된 골와 외연이 각각 미끄럼접촉하여 회전하는 나선상의 송출용 블레이드를 축 과 일체로 회전하도록 설치하는 것에 의해 이너 슬리브(inner sleeve)와 외통 사이에 개재시켜“라고 하고 있 다. 하지만 본건발명의 특허청구범위 기재에 있어서 송출용 블레이드에 골(骨)을 설치하는 것은 배제되고 있 다고는 할 수 없고 또한, 본건 명세서에는 실시예로서 축의 외주면에 축방향에 연하여 직선상으로 조구(条溝) 를 형성한 태양이 기재되어 있는바, 적어도 그와 같은 태양의 것에 관한 한, 블레이드가 가소성 식품을 전단 하는 것은 분명하며, 그 정도도 골(骨)이 있는 경우와 별로 변하지 않는다고 해야 할 것이므로 갑 7 발명에 있어서 골(骨)이 설치되어 있는 것으로 가지고 본건발명과는 원리가 다른 것이라고는 할 수 없다. 본건발명에 서는 ’전기 축을 비회전 또는 송출용 블레이드의 회전보다 저속으로 회전하도록 한다‘에 대하여, 갑 7 발명에 서는, ’전기 이너 슬리브를 비회전‘이라고 하고 있으므로, 축을 비회전으로 하는 태양에 관한 한, 갑 7 발명과 본건발명과는 원리를 달리 하는 것은 아니다.

4) 법원 판단 가) 대상 발명 2에 대하여 대상 발명의 발명자에 대하여 법원은 특허공보에 기재된 발명자 원고 및 P6이 진 정한 발명자임을 추정하였다. 즉 그 기재에 추정력을 인정한 것이다. 그리고 대상 발 명의 특징적 부분에 공헌하는 자가 발명자라는 법리를 제시하였다. 그 법리에 근거하 여 법원은 발명의 특징적 부분에 원고와 P6가 실질적으로 기여하였음을 인정하고 그 둘을 공동발명자로 인정하였다.663) 그 후 법원은 기여의 정도에 대하여도 검토한 후 그 정도에 우열을 가리기가 힘들다는 이유로 두 공동발명자의 지분율을 각각 50%라 고 판단하였다.664) 나) 대상 발명4에 대하여 법원은 “연구보고서에 기재된 제안의 주체가 대상 발명의 발명자라고 인정해야 한 다고 하지만 작성자가 P10이기 때문에, 기재된 제안이 P10에만 의한 것이지, 원고의 관여가 어느 정도 있는지 명확히 할 필요가 있다”고 제시하였다. 법원은 실험계획의 내용에 따라서 서면은 원고의 제안으로 배척이나 수정하는 새로운 제안으로 인정하기 663) “P6가 대상 발명의 발명자로 인정되었지만 연구보고서를 작성할 때, P6이 대상 발명을 완성시켰다고 할 수 없다. 대상 발명의 특허출원과정에 따르면 피고가 원고에게 출원을 의뢰한 것이며, 그 의뢰서에는 발명자를 P6 및 원고로 기재하고 있었고, 원고는 P6이 대상 발명의 연구에서 벗어난 후, 원고가 계속 연구를 하고 있었 던 것을 인정한다. 원고가 대상 발명을 완성시킨 것으로 인정하여 원고도 발명자로 인정되었다.” 664) “P6은 대상 발명 2의 특징적 부분의 완성에 창작적으로 기여하였고 P6이 대상 연구에서 벗어난 후, 원고가 혼자서 연구를 계속해 연속법의 모델로서 행해진 지견을 회분법으로 적용하고, 대상 발명 2를 완성하고 있으 므로, 대상 발명 2에 대해서는 원고와 P6의 공헌 정도에 대하여 우열을 가릴 수 없다고 보아야 한다. 그렇다 면, 대상 발명 2에 대해 공동발명자인 원고 및 P6의 공헌도 비율은 각각 50%라고 인정하는 것이 상당하며, 이 인정을 뒤집을 만한 증거는 없다.” 구성요소 부가 특허출원에 의한 영업비밀 기술탈취 방지를 위한 특허법의 공동발명 개선안 연구 222 어려우므로 원고 및 P10이 협의한 실험을 실시한 결과이었고 대상 발명의 특징적 부 분의 발견을 얻을 수 있었다고 인정되기 때문에 원고 및 P10을 대상 발명의 공동발명 자로 판시하였다. 그리고 원고는 P10의 상사이고 대상 발명의 지도를 수행한 점을 고 려하여 원고의 지분율을 70%로 판시하였다.665) 다) 대상 발명 5에 대해 법원은 원고가 대상 발명의 특허출원 의뢰서를 작성하였고, 원고를 대상 발명의 발 명자로 출원서에 기재한 것을 참고하였다. 그리고 피고 회사는 대상 발명에 관하여 원 고에게 출원보상금 및 등록보상금을 지급하였기 때문에, 그 지급은 원고가 대상 발명 의 특징적 부분을 착상한 점을 인정한 것에 상당하다고 판시하였다. 그러므로 대상 발 명의 발명자는 원고이고 그의 지분율은 100%이다.

즉 객관적 측면에 직접적인 기여는 대상 발명의 성립단계에서 원리, 모델에 대한 것이 163) 影山光太郎, 「発明／共同発明の成立と共同発明者の認定から評価・処遇へ －一般・実験・共同発明の場合の 発明者認定と共同発明者間の寄与割合算定の基準・手順－」, 経済産業調査会, 97頁(“会社内での関係会社内で も、直接「研究・開発の進展（発明の成立）に向けて」研究・開発を行っている部門と同部門から委託を受けて 測定等を行う部門との関係を考えると、測定等部門には共同発明成立のための主観面が欠けていることがありう る。この場合、研究・開発部門の従業員のみが発明者となると考えられる。”). 164) 影山光太郎, 「発明／共同発明の成立と共同発明者の認定から評価・処遇へ －一般・実験・共同発明の場合の 発明者認定と共同発明者間の寄与割合算定の基準・手順－」, 経済産業調査会, 101頁(“共同発明者は、①客観面を 不可欠に直接に行った者（これらの者の間に主観的関与は必要）（直接型、間接型において）、②客観面を直接 に行った者に不可欠に間接的に主観的関与をして加担した者（主観的関与が客観面を行ったと同視しうる程度と 考えられる）（間接型）、または③客観面への直接的寄与と客観面を行った者への間接的加担を合わせて発明成 立への不可欠な寄与をした者（結合型）となる（共同発明者認定の基準）。”). 165) 影山光太郎, 「発明／共同発明の成立と共同発明者の認定から評価・処遇へ －一般・実験・共同発明の場合の 発明者認定と共同発明者間の寄与割合算定の基準・手順－」, 経済産業調査会, 101頁(“共同発明者の認定、共同発 明者間の寄与割合を算定するにあたっては、通常、（i）関係者の客観面への直接的寄与、（i）主観的関与による 間接的加担の順に考察することになる。”). 공동발명자 판단 법리 및 공동발명자 간의 지분율 산정방법에 관한 우리나라, 일본, 미국, 중국 및 독일의 법리연구 95 다.166) 이하에서 공동발명자의 판단요소인 원리 및 모델에 관한 고려요소들을 정리해 서 설명하고 공동발명자 간의 지분율 산정기준 및 산정방식을 소개한다.

4) 서울중앙지방법원 2014. 10. 2. 선고 2013가합517131 판결(제1기능 20%; 제2 기능 25%; 제3 기능20%; 제4 기능 30%) 원고는 대상 사건 각 발명에 대하여 원고의 지분율이 30%라고 주장하였다. 피고는 원고가 대상 발명의 발명자가 아니라고 주장하였다.

셋째, 공동발명의 성립 요건 중 주관적 공동(공동의 인식 또는 의사)을 결여한 경 우에도 일정한 경우 공동발명에 준하는 것으로 취급하여 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 공유로 할 수 있도록 특허법을 개정하는 방안도 가능할 것이다.