동아시아 특허협력을 위한 국가 간 특허기구 및 협력방안 연구

Regional economic integration has led to the establishment of inter-state patent organizations that seek to harmonize patent systems, practices, and judicial procedures. EU’s EPO and UPC, Africa’s ARIPO and OAPI, CIS’s EAPO, and GCC’s GCCPO attained a certain level of unitariness of their patent systems and procedures due to their distinct geo-political and geo-economic reasons. They were established through an international treaty subsequently unifying the overall application, examination, and registration process for patents and establishing grounds for their effectiveness within the territories of the contracting states. In terms of patent application methods and their effectiveness, the characteristics of inter-state patent organizations can be classified into two categories; those that concurrently adopt patent application systems through both national and inter-state patent organizations; and those which adopt a strong centralized system that allows patent applications only through the organization itself. Meanwhile, in terms of the judicial stage of infringement and invalidity proceedings of patents granted, the aforementioned inter-state organizations can be classified into three categories, according to the level of unitariness; judgements made by a single judicial body binding all parties; no unitary judiciary bodies but litigation proceedings carried out through the proceedings of the domestic court, while adopting aㅜ international treaty on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judicial decisions; all judicial phases left to the national judicial courts. The two pillars of South Korea's patent policy towards East Asia have traditionally been focused on the 'trilateral cooperation between Korea, Japan, and China' and the 'ASEAN+3'. Meanwhile, the adoption of the RCEP Agreement and it's Chapter 11 on Intellectual Property Rights by 15 countries in 2019 was the first attempt to establish a unified patent system within the Asia-Pacific region. Through the comparative analysis of the aforementioned inter-state patent organizations, implications were drawn for a higher level of integration of the Asia-Pacific patent systems henceforth. First of all, discussions on intellectual property across RCEP are more akin to those in the EU, which is characterized by gradual and long-term discussions. As a specific course of action to adopt a higher level of patent system in the Asia-Pacific region, the official working language should be English and the unification and harmonization of the Korean-Japanese patent system should be carried out first throughout the patent application, examination, and registration stages, and then expanded to Korea, Japan, and China. The patent systems between Korea and Japan have many similarities that make them suitable for initial coordination, and since numerous patent disputes arise between Korea and China, a unitary system would be regarded highly beneficial. The Validation Agreement can be utilized for the expansion of these systems to ASEAN and RCEP countries. Meanwhile, during the judicial stage, e.g. the infringement and invalidity proceedings of patents, a trilateral treaty on judicial cooperation between Korea, Japan, and China should be adopted, and concurrently, ASEAN countries should be induced to adopt and accede to the Hague Service Convention, Hague Evidence Convention, and the New York Convention, while maintaining the framework of RCEP. In addition, a Korea, Japan, and China trilateral committee to hear non-enforceable declarations of ineffectiveness and confirmation of the scope of a patent could be considered as a way to coordinate collateral estoppel and the admissibility of evidence in national trials and litigation. The adoption of judicial cooperation agreements with ASEAN and RCEP countries will help unify the patent system cycle and the judicial phases in the Asia-Pacific.