표준필수특허에 기초한 금지청구권 행사의 제한 가능성 -한국과 미국 판례의 대비적 분석을 중심으로-

In the United States, Federal district courts may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity on such terms as the court deems reasonable. The criteria for the grant of a permanent injunction are set out in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of eBay, Inc. v MercExchange, which requires district courts to exercise their discretion before issuing an injunction and to apply a four-factor test whereby the plaintiff must demonstrate. U.S. federal district courts have the discretion to grant injunctions when the balance of equitable factors, including a consideration of the public interest, weighs in favour of granting injunctive relief. These factors have been recently applied by two federal district courts(for example, Apple v. Motorola Case, Microsoft v. Motorola Case) to deny injunctive relief to holders of SEPs who have given a FRAND commitment. In Korea, courts principally have no judicial discretion to grant injunctive relief for infringement of an intellectual property rights(IPRs). In short, this paper tries to provide a comparative legal analysis between the US and Korea of the specific conditions in which injunctive relief are available for infringement of a standard essential patent for which a FRAND-commitment has been given. But the task is a difficult one. Because as mentioned earlier, basic legal system is different between the two nations. Nevertheless, it is important that we try to find the specific conditions in which injunctive relief are available for infringement of a standard essential patent for which a FRANDcommitment has been given. Such as, for example, these things; breach of contract, considerations based on the principle of good faith, abuse of rights, or estoppel.