세계 각국은, 과학기술이 국력을 대표하게 되면서 기술적 창조에 대하여 재산권을 부여하고 이를 법적 장치로 보호함으로서 기술우위의 경쟁력 확보를 통한 과학기술입국을 지향하고 있다. 이러한 기술적(지적) 창조물에 대한 권리는 개인의 이익보호 보다는 국가정책적 판단에 의하여 결정되는 경향으로 나아가고 있다. 과학기술에 대한 적정하고 신속한 보호는 한 국가의 과학기술정책을 부응하는 것인데, 법원은 과학기술에 대한 분쟁이 발생할 경우 그 사실관계를 정확히 이해하고 신속한 재판을 함으로써 궁극적으로 기술의 발전과 산업의 보호에 이바지하게 된다. 이러한 취지에서 개원한 특허법원은 그 동안 비약적인 발전을 하였지만, 특허와 관계된 재판은 여러 가지 새로운 법률문제를 안고 있다. 즉 법관이 고도의 과학기술영역에서의 분쟁을 해결하기 위해서는 전문기술영역에서의 사실판단능력까지도 요구되어지지만, 기존의 사법제도는 법관에게 법률적 사고에 따른 가치판단만을 강조하고 있어서 기술적 분야에서의 분쟁에 능동적으로 대처하지 못하고 있다. 또한 특허법원의 소송절차는 다른 소송에 비하여 특수한 형태를 가지고 있고, 그 중에서 특허법원의 심리범위에 관한 문제는 특허법의 해석과 행정소송법상의 해석의 차이, 사실판단의 문제에 있어서 국민의 재판을 받을 권리의 침해 여부, 특허행정 실무자와 특허법원간의 역할분담 등의 문제는 아직도 해결해야 할 사안들이다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위하여 필자는 특허법원의 항소심적 성격을 특허심판과의 관계에서 심급적 연계문제, 특허심결취소소송의 소송물을 심리범위로 볼 수 있는가, 만약 볼 수 있다면 그 범위는 어디까지로 할 것인가 등을 학설을 바탕으로 고찰하였고 필자의 의견도 밝혔다. 특히 심결취소소송의 성격을 규명하기 위하여 소송을 지배하는 법리를 고찰하고 소송물을 확정한 후 일반 행정소송처럼 원처분의 위법성 일반으로 취급한다면 심리범위는 무제한적이겠지만, 반대로 심리범위가 축소되면 특허법 제186조에 반하는 결과가 되어 자칫 ‘국민의 재판을 받을 권리’가 침해될 수 있다. 이런 경우 실무에서는 특정 학설을 기초로 삼아 처리하고 있는데, 그 학설의 단점이 가져 온 폐단으로 인하여 심리범위가 축소되어 권리를 침해받게 된다면 근본적으로 학설의 변경을 검토해야 하지 않을까 생각을 해 본다. 그렇다면 이에 적합한 학설은 어떤 학설일까? 그리고 학설변경에 따른 새로운 주장과 새로운 증거(자료제출)는 어느 범위까지 제한해야 하는가에 대한 방향을 제시하였다. 아울러 이와 관련된 외국의 제도와 그 운영 실태를 살펴보았다.

Appropriate and timely protection of scientific techniques satisfies a country's science policies. When a conflict relating to scientific technique arises, the patent court understands the related facts and makes a swift judgment, thereby contributing, ultimately, to advancement in technology and protection of industry. The patent court, which was opened for this purpose, has made rapid progress thus far, but judgments related to patents have many new problems relating to the law. That is, for the judiciary to solve conflicts related to advanced scientific technology, the ability to assess facts is required, but the existing judicial system only stresses the importance of assessing values by legal thinking, and as a result no active measures are being taken in the technology field. Furthermore, the legal procedure of the patent court has a differentiated form compared to other legal procedures. In particular, problems related to the scope of trial, in terms of the difference between interpretation of patent laws and administrative litigation laws, whether there is infringement of the public's right to trial for the fact assessment, and the problem of how to divide responsibility between the patent administration's working-level officials and the patent court are still left to be solved. In order to solve these problems, a patent court's characteristics in hearing of appeals were investigated based on the theory, in terms of problem with the interaction of patent judges of different levels, and whether objectives of patent appeals fall under the scope of trial, and if so, what is its extent, and I've stated my opinions on the matter as well. In particular, if in order to closely examine characteristics of an appeal, legal principles that govern the lawsuit are examined, objectives of the lawsuit are confirmed, and treated as an ordinary administrative litigation, the scope of trial is unlimited. On the other hand, if the results are such that the patent law's clause 186 applies, the scope of trial may be reduced, and the so-called “the right to receive the public's judgment” might be infringed. In this case, a specific theory is adopted as the basis to deal with the problem. If the rights are infringed with reduced scope of trial due to evil practices that the theory's disadvantages bring, the theory would need to be changed in fundamental ways. I've presented what is an appropriate theory at this time and to what extent new claims resulting from change of theory and submission of data would need to be limited. Also, I've examined related systems of foreign countries and how they are operated.

Appropriate and timely protection of scientific techniques satisfies a country's science policies. When a conflict relating to scientific technique arises, the patent court understands the related facts and makes a swift judgment, thereby contributing, ultimately, to advancement in technology and protection of industry. The patent court, which was opened for this purpose, has made rapid progress thus far, but judgments related to patents have many new problems relating to the law. That is, for the judiciary to solve conflicts related to advanced scientific technology, the ability to assess facts is required, but the existing judicial system only stresses the importance of assessing values by legal thinking, and as a result no active measures are being taken in the technology field. Furthermore, the legal procedure of the patent court has a differentiated form compared to other legal procedures. In particular, problems related to the scope of trial, in terms of the difference between interpretation of patent laws and administrative litigation laws, whether there is infringement of the public's right to trial for the fact assessment, and the problem of how to divide responsibility between the patent administration's working-level officials and the patent court are still left to be solved. In order to solve these problems, a patent court's characteristics in hearing of appeals were investigated based on the theory, in terms of problem with the interaction of patent judges of different levels, and whether objectives of patent appeals fall under the scope of trial, and if so, what is its extent, and I've stated my opinions on the matter as well. In particular, if in order to closely examine characteristics of an appeal, legal principles that govern the lawsuit are examined, objectives of the lawsuit are confirmed, and treated as an ordinary administrative litigation, the scope of trial is unlimited. On the other hand, if the results are such that the patent law's clause 186 applies, the scope of trial may be reduced, and the so-called “the right to receive the public's judgment” might be infringed. In this case, a specific theory is adopted as the basis to deal with the problem. If the rights are infringed with reduced scope of trial due to evil practices that the theory's disadvantages bring, the theory would need to be changed in fundamental ways. I've presented what is an appropriate theory at this time and to what extent new claims resulting from change of theory and submission of data would need to be limited. Also, I've examined related systems of foreign countries and how they are operated.

, , , , , , ,

scope of hearing, object of protection, litigation for cancellation of a trial decision, patent Court, decision to revoke patent res judicate, patent litigation