|
||||||||||||||||
PATENT | ||||||||||||||||
KFTC Amends IPR Guidelines | ||||||||||||||||
The Korea Fair Trade Commission ("KFTC") made significant amendments to its "Guidelines on the Examination of Unfair Exercise of Intellectual Property Rights" ("Amended IPR Guidelines" or "Guidelines") on December 17, 2014, effective as of December 24, 2014. The Amended IPR Guidelines reflect the KFTC's active interest in applying competition law against the "unfair exercise" of intellectual property rights.
The main aspects of the Amended IPR Guidelines are as follows: New Guidance Regarding Injunctions for Standard Essential Patents ("SEPs") The Amended IPR Guidelines provide some new guidance regarding when injunctions for SEPs are appropriate, which appear to seek a balance between the interests of both SEP holders and technology implementers, stating that an SEP holder is not automatically required to grant a license to third parties, but since an SEP holder who provided a FRAND commitment is obliged to engage in good-faith negotiations, an injunction against a "willing licensee" may be determined as anti-competitive. The Amended IPR Guidelines provide some details on the standards for what would constitute good-faith negotiations on the part of the SEP holder, but relatively little guidance as to what is meant by a "willing licensee." The Guidelines do mention the possibility of "reverse hold-up" by "unwilling licensees," and give examples of situations where an SEP holder's injunction is less likely to be held as anti-competitive. However, the examples are fairly narrow in scope, such as when a potential licensee refuses to be bound by or to comply with FRAND terms determined by a court or arbitral institution, or when an injunction is the only meaningful remedy because it is difficult to recover damages from a potential licensee for some reason, such as the imminent bankruptcy of the potential licensee. The Guidelines continue to include provisions regarding what constitutes abuse by the SEP holder of the standardization procedure, or what license terms may be deemed unfair and beyond the legitimate scope of an SEP, as follows: |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
New Provisions Concerning Non-Practicing Entities ("NPEs")
Rather than using the term "NPEs," the Guidelines use a new term, Enterprisers Specializing in Patent Management ("ESPM"), which is defined as any person or entity engaging in the business which generates profits through the exercise of patent rights against technology implementers without themselves engaging in either the manufacture or sale of goods or the provision of services using the patented technology. The Guidelines enumerate a number of acts that are potentially abusive, especially when engaged in by ESPMs (though such acts by non-ESPMs may also be abusive), as follows: |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Reform on General Guidance
While Article 59 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law ("MRFTL") provides that the fair exercise of IP rights is not forbidden by the MRFTL, the Amended Guidelines clarify that determination of whether the exercise of IPR is fair requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including the purpose and aim of relevant IP laws such as the Patent Act, the content of such IPR, and the effect of the act on competition in the relevant market. The revisions in the Amended IPR Guidelines reflect the first Korean Supreme Court decisions on the application of the MRFTL in cases arising from patent settlement, showing that patent rights do not shield such settlements from the scrutiny of the competition authorities (See Supreme Court Decision Nos. 2012 Du 24498 and 2012 Du 27794, both rendered on February 27, 2014). The Amended IPR Guidelines also contain the following updates: |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
KFTC's Enforcement Plans
In the press release accompanying the Amended IPR Guidelines, the KFTC stated that it will continue to monitor the abuse of IPRs in the future. The KFTC also submitted its annual report to the Office of the President on its enforcement plans for 2015 ("2015 Annual Report") on January 13, 2015. Notably, the KFTC plans to continue to focus particular attention on the information & communications technology ("ICT") sector by establishing a Special Task Force for the sector. The 2015 Annual Report also identifies the mobile platform and software and IP sectors as areas of particular interest. According to the 2015 Annual Report, the KFTC will engage in close monitoring of possible abuses of dominance, such as illegal tying practices by dominant software developers and the abuse of patent rights by firms with control over standard technologies (such as coercing grantbacks to a licensor of a licensee's independently-obtained knowledge, experience or technological achievements regarding the contracted products or technology, or unreasonably charging royalties for parts not using the licensed technology). In view of the Amended IPR Guidelines and the KFTC's scrutiny, companies in the ICT and software industries are advised to pay special attention to any aspects of their licensing transactions which may raise competition law concerns, particularly where licensing of standard-essential technologies is concerned. |
||||||||||||||||
Back to Main Page | ||||||||||||||||
If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact: | ||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
For more information, please visit our website: www.ip.kimchang.com | ||||||||||||||||