Untold Stories of Intellectual Property

Sunday, December 22, 2024

V. Comparative Analysis of Third-Party Defendant Impleader in U.S. Litigation and Korean Civil Procedure

V. Comparative Analysis of Third-Party Defendant Impleader in U.S. Litigation and Korean Civil Procedure

Manufacturing companies are often drawn into U.S. patent litigation as third-party defendants at the request of defendants, who are typically purchasers of the accused products. Given that many Korean companies supply critical components to U.S. manufacturers, such scenarios are not uncommon.

On December 12, 2024, Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted Samsung Electronics' request, ordering third-party defendant Seoul Semiconductor to produce documents as part of the discovery process. Such developments are typical in U.S. patent litigation. (Seoul Wire Article)

Accordingly, Korean manufacturers must fully understand the legal framework governing third-party defendants in U.S. litigation, develop strategic approaches, and prepare for discovery obligations. The following analysis compares the third-party impleader system in the U.S. with the procedural framework in Korea, highlighting key differences.

1. Comparison Between U.S. Third-Party Defendant Impleader and Korean Civil Procedure

1.1 Overview of U.S. Third-Party Impleader

The U.S. third-party impleader system allows a defendant to shift potential liability to a third party or seek contribution and indemnity through a mandatory procedural mechanism under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 14. The key requirements are as follows:

The defendant must allege that the third party bears partial or full responsibility for the plaintiff’s claims.
A defendant may implead a third party without leave of court within 14 days of serving its answer. After this period, court approval is required.

1.2 Features of Korean Civil Procedure

Unlike the U.S., Korean civil procedure does not have a mandatory third-party impleader mechanism. Instead, the following alternative approaches are utilized:

Intervention mechanisms such as joint intervention, succession participation, and auxiliary intervention allow interested parties to join voluntarily.
Consolidation of related cases enables separate lawsuits to be merged for unified adjudication.

1.3 Analyzing the Differences

1) Scope of Res Judicata

U.S.:
- The doctrine of Res Judicata applies broadly, based on the same transaction test, compelling parties to resolve all related claims within a single proceeding.
- The concepts of merger (claims absorbed into judgments) and bar (claims precluded in future litigation) enforce comprehensive dispute resolution.
Korea:
- Res Judicata is limited to the specific claims raised in a given lawsuit, based on the object of litigation theory.
- Related claims may be pursued in separate lawsuits, reducing the necessity for forced joinder of third parties.

2) Structural Differences in Procedure

U.S.: The system emphasizes procedural efficiency by enabling multi-party disputes and multiple claims to be resolved in a single proceeding through impleader.
Korea: Procedural stability and party autonomy are prioritized, allowing claims to remain distinct and resolved independently.

3) Philosophical Divergences

U.S.: Focuses on substantive justice and litigation economy, enabling active judicial intervention to consolidate disputes and resolve them comprehensively.
Korea: Emphasizes procedural fairness and party autonomy, avoiding compulsory involvement of unwilling third parties.

Conclusion

The U.S. and Korean civil litigation systems exhibit fundamental differences regarding third-party impleader procedures. The U.S. prioritizes substantive justice and judicial efficiency by permitting defendants to forcibly implead third parties, while Korea emphasizes procedural stability and party autonomy, relying on voluntary participation and case consolidation to address related claims.

For Korean companies engaged in U.S. patent litigation, it is critical to evaluate the potential for being impleaded as third-party defendants and to proactively incorporate indemnification clauses and strategic defenses into contractual agreements to mitigate risk.

[한국어 버전]

V. 미국 소송상 제3자 피고 인입 제도와 한국 민사소송 제도의 비교 고찰

제조 기업들은 종종 미국 특허소송에서 피소된 제품의 구매자인 피고의 요청에 의해 공급자로서 제3자 피고(Third-Party Defendant)로 소송에 참여하게 됩니다. 특히, 한국의 많은 기업들이 미국 완제품 제조사에 핵심 부품을 공급하고 있어 이러한 상황이 자주 발생합니다.

2024년 12월 12일, 미국 델라웨어주 연방지방법원의 J. 니콜라스 란잔(J. Nicholas Ranjan) 판사는 원고인 삼성전자의 요청을 승인하며, 제3자 피고인 서울반도체에게 문서 제출을 명령(미 디스커버리 절차상 증거생산 명령)했습니다. 이는 미국 특허소송에서 흔히 볼 수 있는 사례입니다. (서울와이어 기사)

이에 따라 한국 제조업체들은 미국 특허소송에서 제3자 피고의 법적 지위, 전략적 대응 방안, 디스커버리 의무를 명확히 이해하고 준비해야 합니다. 아래에서는 미국과 한국의 제3자 피고 인입 제도를 비교 분석하여 차이점을 고찰합니다.

1. 미국 소송상 제3자 피고 인입 제도와 한국 민사소송 제도의 비교

1.1 미국 제3자 인입 제도(Impleader) 개요

미국의 제3자 인입소송(Impleader) 은 기존 피고가 소송에서 발생할 잠재적 책임을 제3자에게 전가하거나 구상 책임을 청구하기 위해 활용하는 강제 절차입니다. 이 절차는 미국 민사소송법(FRCP Rule 14)에 따라 다음과 같은 요건을 충족해야 합니다:

피고는 제3자가 원고의 청구와 관련하여 피고의 일부 또는 전체 책임을 부담해야 한다고 주장해야 합니다.
피고는 원고가 소장을 제출한 후 14일 이내에는 법원의 승인 없이 제3자를 소환할 수 있으며, 그 이후에는 법원의 허가가 필요합니다.

1.2 한국 민사소송 제도의 특징

한국 민사소송법에는 미국의 Impleader와 같은 강제 절차는 존재하지 않습니다. 대신, 다음과 같은 우회적 절차가 사용됩니다:

공동소송참가, 참가승계, 인수참가, 보조참가를 통해 이해관계인의 자발적 참여를 유도합니다.
별소 병합을 통해 기존 소송과 관련된 청구를 통합하여 처리합니다.

1.3 제도의 차이 원인 분석

1) 기판력(Res Judicata)의 범위 차이

미국:
- Res Judicata(기판력) 의 범위가 넓어 거래의 동일성 원칙(Same Transaction Test) 을 적용합니다.
- 관련 청구를 한 번에 해결하도록 강제하며, 흡수효(Merger) 및 배제효(Bar) 를 인정합니다.
한국:
- 기판력이 소송물 이론에 근거하여 특정 청구에 한정됩니다.
- 관련 청구라도 별도의 소송으로 처리할 수 있어 제3자 강제 인입 필요성이 낮습니다.

2) 소송 구조 차이

미국: 복수 청구 및 다수 당사자 소송의 효율적 해결을 위해 강제 절차(Impleader)를 도입하여 신속한 분쟁 해결을 도모합니다.
한국: 청구 분립을 유지하여 절차 안정성과 당사자 자율을 보장합니다.

3) 법철학 차이

미국: 실체적 정의와 소송경제를 중시하여 적극 개입하고 관련 당사자를 절차 내에 포함시켜 분쟁을 종결하려 합니다.
한국: 절차적 공정성과 당사자 자율성을 중시하여 당사자의 동의 없는 강제 소송 인입을 제한합니다.

결론

미국과 한국의 민사소송 제도는 제3자 인입 절차에서 근본적인 차이를 보입니다. 미국은 실체적 정의와 소송 경제를 우선시하여 Impleader 절차를 통해 관련 당사자를 강제로 소송에 참여시키는 반면, 한국은 절차적 안정성과 당사자 자율을 강조하여 자발적 참여와 별소 병합을 통해 문제를 해결합니다.

따라서 한국 기업들은 미국 특허소송에서 제3자 피고로 인입될 가능성을 미리 검토하고, 계약서의 면책 조항 및 대응 전략을 철저히 준비하는 것이 중요합니다.

IV. How Manufacturers Can Avoid Being Impleaded as Third-Party Defendants in U.S. Patent Litigation

IV. How Manufacturers Can Avoid Being Impleaded as Third-Party Defendants in U.S. Patent Litigation

Manufacturers are often drawn into U.S. patent litigation as third-party defendants at the request of defendants, who are typically purchasers of the accused products. Given that many Korean companies supply key components to U.S. manufacturers, it is not uncommon for them to face such scenarios.

On December 12, 2024, Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted Samsung Electronics’ request, ordering third-party defendant Seoul Semiconductor to produce documents as part of discovery. Such developments are not unusual in U.S. patent litigation. (Seoul Wire Article)

Accordingly, Korean manufacturers must understand the legal framework governing third-party defendants, develop strategies to avoid impleader and prepare for discovery obligations. The following discussion uses Seoul Semiconductor as an example but applies broadly to similar situations.

1. Requirements for Impleading a Third-Party Defendant

1.1 Legal Basis for Impleader

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 14, a defendant may implead a third party if the third party may be liable for all or part of the plaintiff’s claims. To satisfy this requirement, the defendant must assert:

The third party has a legal obligation to indemnify or reimburse the defendant for damages related to the plaintiff’s claims.
The third party has a legal relationship with the defendant, even if it does not owe a direct obligation to the plaintiff.

Impleader Process:

A defendant may implead a third party without leave of court within 14 days after serving its original answer.
After 14 days, the defendant must obtain the court’s permission to implead a third party.

Case Example: In the cited case, TCP sought to implead Seoul Semiconductor by asserting that Seoul Semiconductor supplied key components or technologies implicated in the alleged patent infringement. TCP’s assertions likely included:

Seoul Semiconductor contributed directly or indirectly to the alleged infringement.
Seoul Semiconductor should share in any liability arising from the claims.
TCP may claim indemnity or contribution against Seoul Semiconductor.

2. Strategies to Oppose Third-Party Impleader

2.1 Motion to Dismiss the Third-Party Complaint

A third-party defendant may move to dismiss the impleader complaint by arguing:

Lack of Legal Relationship:
- The third party is not sufficiently related to the alleged infringement, e.g., it merely supplied a product and is not connected to the specific infringement allegations.
Undue Burden or Prejudice:
- Impleading the third party imposes excessive costs or delays that compromise fairness and efficiency.
Lack of Jurisdiction:
- The third party is located outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, e.g., Seoul Semiconductor is a Korean entity.

2.2 Answer and Motion to Strike

Once impleaded, the third-party defendant may:

File an answer to contest the allegations.
Move to strike claims that are irrelevant, unfounded, or improperly pleaded.

2.3 Protective Order

If the impleader requires the third-party defendant to disclose confidential or proprietary information, the third-party defendant may:

Request a protective order limiting the scope of disclosure.
Assert trade secret protections to prevent unnecessary exposure.

3. Consequences of Failing to Contest Impleader

If a manufacturer fails to contest the impleader or is unsuccessful in its opposition, the following consequences may arise:

Court-Ordered Participation:
- The third-party defendant must comply with discovery obligations and defend its position in litigation.
Increased Costs and Reputational Risks:
- Litigation costs and reputational damage may arise from being implicated in patent infringement claims.
Exposure to Subsequent Litigation:
- Failure to successfully oppose the impleader may invite additional lawsuits from either the defendant or the plaintiff.
Compulsory Participation:
- Manufacturers that supply critical components may have no viable defense against impleader if:
  - Their products are central to the infringement allegations.
  - Their contracts with the defendant contain indemnification or warranty clauses.

Conclusion

Manufacturers facing the risk of being impleaded as third-party defendants in U.S. patent litigation must adopt proactive strategies to avoid such involvement. Where impleader is sought, manufacturers may contest the claims through dismissal motions, protective orders, or jurisdictional challenges. However, in cases involving technical relevance or contractual obligations, impleader may be unavoidable. Therefore, manufacturers must assess legal risks, review supply agreements, and prepare robust defenses to minimize exposure and protect their interests.

[한국어 버전]

IV. 제조사가 미국 특허소송에서 제3자 피고로 인입되지 않으려면

제조 기업들은 종종 미국 특허소송에서 피소된 제품의 구매자인 피고의 요청에 의해 공급자로서 제3자 피고(Third-Party Defendant)로 소송에 끌려들어갑니다. 특히, 한국의 많은 기업들이 미국 완제품 제조사에 핵심 부품을 공급하고 있기 때문에 이러한 사례는 드물지 않습니다.

2024년 12월 12일, 미국 델라웨어주 연방지방법원의 J. 니콜라스 란잔(J. Nicholas Ranjan) 판사는 원고인 삼성전자의 요청을 승인하며, 제3자 피고인 서울반도체에게 문서 제출을 명령(미 디스커버리 절차상 증거생산 명령)했습니다. 이는 미국 특허소송에서 자주 발생하는 상황입니다. (서울와이어 기사)

따라서 한국 제조업체들은 미국 특허소송에서 제3자 피고로 참여하는 상황을 피하기 위한 전략과 대응 방안을 이해할 필요가 있습니다. 이 글에서는 제3자 피고 인입 조건과 인입 거부 방법을 살펴보겠습니다.

1. 제3자 피고의 강제 인입 요건

1.1 피고의 제3자 인입 요건

완제품 판매자인 피고가 피소 제품의 공급자를 제3자 피고로 소환하려면, 미국 민사소송법(FRCP Rule 14)에 따라 다음 요건을 충족해야 합니다:

피고는 제3자가 소송에서 발생할 책임의 일부를 분담하거나 책임을 져야 한다고 주장해야 합니다.
제3자 피고는 기존 소송의 원고에 대해 직접 책임을 지지 않더라도 기존 피고와 법적 연관성이 있어야 합니다.

제3자 인입소송(Impleader) 절차는 피고가 제3자가 원고의 청구에 대해 구상 책임(indemnity) 또는 기여 책임(contribution)을 져야 한다고 주장할 때 적용됩니다.

절차 요건:

원고가 소장을 제출한 후 14일 이내라면 피고는 법원의 허락 없이 제3자를 소환할 수 있습니다.
14일이 지난 후에는 법원의 승인을 받아야 합니다.

사례 분석:
기사의 사례에서는 피고인 TCP가 서울반도체가 특허 침해와 관련된 핵심 부품이나 기술을 제공했다고 주장하며 증거 제출을 요구했습니다. TCP의 주장 요지는 다음과 같습니다:

서울반도체가 관련 제품의 공급자로서 특허 침해에 기여했다.
서울반도체는 특허 침해에 대한 손해배상 책임의 일부를 부담해야 한다.
TCP는 서울반도체에 대해 구상 책임(Indemnity) 또는 기여 책임(Contribution)을 요구할 수 있다.

1.2 제3자 인입 소송 거부 방법

만약 제조업체가 피고의 요청에 따라 제3자 피고로 소환될 경우, 다음과 같은 방법으로 이를 거부하거나 대응할 수 있습니다:

제3자 청구 기각(Motion to Dismiss the Third-Party Complaint):
- 법적 연관성 부족: 소송 쟁점과 직접적 관련이 없음을 주장.
- 부당한 지연 및 부담: 소송 참여가 과도한 비용과 시간을 요구함을 강조.
- 관할권 문제: 미국 법원의 관할권 밖에 있음을 근거로 주장.
제3자 소송 반박(Answer and Motion to Strike):
- 제3자 피고로 지정된 후 답변서(Answer)를 제출하고, 부적절한 주장을 삭제하도록 법원에 신청(Motion to Strike)할 수 있습니다.
보호명령 신청(Protective Order):
- 기밀 정보 보호 또는 과도한 증거 요구를 이유로 법원에 보호명령(protective order) 을 신청할 수 있습니다.

1.3 제3자 소송 인입 거부 시의 결과

제조업체가 제3자 소송 참여를 거부하거나 법적 대응에 실패하면 다음과 같은 결과가 발생할 수 있습니다:

법원의 강제 참여 명령:
법원이 피고의 신청이 타당하다고 판단하면, 공급사는 강제로 제3자 피고로 참여해야 하며, 증거 제출 및 법적 방어 의무를 수행해야 합니다.
소송 비용 및 평판 손상:
소송 참여 거부가 법원의 불리한 판결이나 비용 증가, 고객 신뢰도 저하 등 간접적인 손실을 초래할 수 있습니다.
추가 소송 위험:
소송 종료 후 피고 또는 원고가 공급사를 상대로 구상 책임 또는 직접 특허 침해를 주장하는 추가 소송을 제기할 가능성이 있습니다.
거부가 불가능한 상황:
특정 상황에서는 제조업체가 제3자 피고로 소환되는 것을 거부하기 어렵습니다. 예를 들어:
- 기술적 연관성: 공급한 부품이 특허 침해의 원인으로 지목된 경우.
- 계약적 의무: 계약에 면책 조항 또는 보증 조항이 포함되어 있는 경우.

결론

제조업체들은 미국 특허소송에서 제3자 피고로 인입되지 않기 위해 전략적 준비가 필요합니다. 피고의 요청이 부당하거나 과도하다고 판단될 경우, 법적 기각 신청, 반박, 또는 보호명령을 통해 대응할 수 있습니다.

그러나 기술적 연관성 또는 계약적 의무로 인해 거부가 어려운 상황도 발생할 수 있습니다. 따라서 사전에 계약 검토와 법적 위험 분석을 통해 대응 전략을 수립하고, 디스커버리 준비를 철저히 해야 합니다.

III. Obligations of Third-Party Defendants in U.S. Patent Litigation

III. Obligations of Third-Party Defendants in U.S. Patent Litigation

Manufacturing companies are frequently brought into U.S. patent litigation as third-party defendants at the request of the primary defendants, often the purchasers of accused products. Many Korean companies supply key components to U.S. manufacturers, making such scenarios common.

On December 12, 2024, Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted Samsung Electronics' request, ordering third-party defendant Seoul Semiconductor to produce documents as part of discovery. Such developments are not unusual in U.S. patent litigation. (Seoul Wire Article)

Accordingly, Korean manufacturers must fully understand the legal status of third-party defendants in U.S. patent litigation, develop strategic responses, and adequately prepare for discovery obligations. While this discussion uses Seoul Semiconductor as an example, it broadly applies to similar cases.

1. Legal Consequences of Failing to Comply with Discovery Orders

Failure by a third-party defendant to comply with a discovery order issued by a U.S. court can result in severe legal sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). U.S. courts have the authority to impose strict penalties for violations of discovery obligations.

1.1 Legal Basis for Discovery Obligations

FRCP Rule 45 governs subpoenas issued to third parties, requiring them to produce documents or provide testimony. A third party served with a subpoena must comply with the order. Failure to do so can result in a finding of contempt of court and corresponding penalties.

1.2 Sanctions for Non-Compliance

Even though Seoul Semiconductor is not a primary defendant, its failure to comply with a court-ordered discovery request can lead to the following sanctions:

Contempt of Court:
- Non-compliance may result in contempt charges, leading to fines or imprisonment.
- In civil cases, fines may continue to accrue until compliance is achieved.
Cost Shifting:
- Courts may order Seoul Semiconductor to pay attorneys’ fees and litigation costs incurred due to its refusal to comply.
Adverse Inference:
- Courts may interpret non-compliance as evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claims, potentially implicating Seoul Semiconductor’s technology or processes in patent infringement.
Compelling Orders:
- Courts may issue additional orders to compel compliance, imposing harsher penalties for repeated violations.

2. Jurisdictional Considerations

As a Korean company, Seoul Semiconductor may raise jurisdictional challenges. However, the following factors may limit its ability to avoid compliance:

U.S. Business Operations:
- U.S. courts can assert jurisdiction if Seoul Semiconductor has subsidiaries or conducts business within the United States.
International Treaties:
- Under the Hague Evidence Convention, the U.S. can request evidence from foreign entities, making compliance enforceable internationally.
Commercial Sanctions:
- Persistent non-compliance could lead to adverse business consequences, such as restrictions on operations within the U.S.

3. Defenses Against Discovery Orders

Seoul Semiconductor may challenge the discovery request by demonstrating that compliance imposes an unreasonable burden. The following defenses may be raised:

Unreasonable Burden:
- The volume or scope of requested documents imposes excessive costs or time requirements.
Confidentiality Concerns:
- The requested materials contain trade secrets or confidential information, and disclosure may result in substantial business harm.
Jurisdictional Objections:
- Seoul Semiconductor may argue that it is outside the direct jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

In such cases, courts may modify the scope of the request or issue protective orders to safeguard confidentiality.

Conclusion

Third-party defendants in U.S. patent litigation must comply with discovery obligations to avoid severe legal sanctions. International jurisdiction and confidentiality concerns should be carefully managed, and Korean companies must implement proactive strategies to mitigate legal risks and ensure compliance with U.S. legal requirements.

[한국어 버전]

III. 미국 특허소송에서 제3자 피고의 의무

미국 특허소송에서 제조업체들은 종종 피소된 제품의 구매자인 피고의 요청에 의해 공급자로서 제3자 피고(Third-Party Defendant)로 소송에 참여하게 됩니다. 특히, 한국의 많은 기업들은 미국 완제품 제조사에 핵심 부품을 공급하고 있어 이러한 상황이 자주 발생합니다.

이에 따라 한국 제조업체들은 미국 특허소송에서 제3자 피고의 법적 지위, 전략적 대응 방안, 디스커버리 의무를 명확히 이해하고 준비해야 합니다. 아래 내용은 서울반도체의 사례를 예시로 들었으나, 유사한 상황에 일반적으로 적용될 수 있습니다.

1. 제3자 피고의 증거생산(discovery) 명령 불이행 시 법적 책임

제3자 피고가 미국 법원의 증거생산(discovery) 명령을 이행하지 않을 경우, 미국 민사소송법(Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, FRCP)에 따라 다음과 같은 법적 제재를 받을 수 있습니다. 미국 법원은 제3자의 증거생산 의무 위반 시 강력한 제재를 부과할 권한을 가집니다.

1.1 증거생산 의무의 법적 근거

미국 민사소송법 제45조(FRCP Rule 45) 는 소송 당사자가 아닌 제3자에 대해 증거를 요구할 수 있는 소환(subpoena) 절차를 규정합니다. 소환 명령을 받은 제3자는 증거 제출이나 증언을 이행할 의무가 있습니다. 명령을 이행하지 않으면, 법원은 이를 법정모독(contempt of court) 으로 간주할 수 있습니다.

1.2 증거생산 명령 불이행 시 제재

서울반도체가 소송 당사자가 아니더라도, 법원은 서울반도체에 제3자 피고로서 증거 제출을 명령했기 때문에 이를 정당한 이유 없이 거부하면 법적 제재 대상이 됩니다. 제재 유형은 다음과 같습니다:

법정모독(contempt of court)
- 명령 불이행은 법정모독으로 간주되며, 벌금(fines) 또는 구속(imprisonment) 같은 제재가 부과될 수 있습니다.
- 민사적인 경우, 명령 이행 시까지 벌금이 지속적으로 부과될 수 있습니다.
비용 부담(order to pay costs)
- 법원은 명령 불이행으로 발생한 소송 비용이나 변호사 비용을 서울반도체가 부담하도록 명령할 수 있습니다.
불이익 추정(adverse inference)
- 법원은 명령 불이행을 근거로 삼성전자의 주장을 유리하게 해석할 수 있습니다. 예를 들어, LED 기술이나 제조 공정이 특허침해와 관련이 있다고 추정할 수 있습니다.
강제 명령(compelling order)
- 법원은 증거 제출을 강제하기 위해 추가 명령을 내릴 수 있으며, 반복 위반 시 더 강력한 제재를 가할 수 있습니다.

2. 국제적 관할권 문제

서울반도체는 한국 기업이므로 국제 관할권 문제가 발생할 수 있습니다. 그러나 다음과 같은 사유로 증거 제출 의무 회피는 어려울 수 있습니다.

미국 내 사업 활동:
- 서울반도체가 미국 내 사업체 운영 또는 자회사를 보유하고 있다면, 미국 법원은 이를 근거로 관할권을 주장할 수 있습니다.
국제소송 협약:
- 한미 간 헤이그 증거수집 협약(Hague Evidence Convention) 에 따라 국가 간 증거 제출이 강제될 수 있습니다.
거래 제재:
- 서울반도체가 명령을 반복적으로 무시할 경우, 미국 내 비즈니스 활동에 불이익을 받을 수 있습니다.

3. 합리적 반박 사유

서울반도체가 증거생산 명령의 과도함을 주장하며 이행을 거부하려면, 다음과 같은 합리적 사유를 제시해야 합니다.

불합리한 부담(unreasonable burden):
- 요청된 문서의 양이 과도하여 비용이나 시간 소요가 지나치게 크다는 점을 증명해야 합니다.
기밀 정보 보호(confidentiality):
- 요청된 자료에 영업비밀이나 기밀 정보가 포함되어 있어 제출 시 심각한 사업적 피해가 발생할 위험이 있을 경우 이를 주장할 수 있습니다.
관할권 문제:
- 서울반도체가 미국 법원의 직접적 관할권 밖에 있다는 점을 주장할 수 있습니다.

이러한 경우, 법원은 증거 요청 범위를 조정하거나 보호명령(protective order) 을 통해 기밀 유지 조치를 취할 수 있습니다.

결론

제조사인 제3자 피고는 미국 특허소송에서 증거 제출 의무를 준수해야 하며, 이를 위반할 경우 다양한 법적 제재를 받을 수 있습니다. 특히 국제 관할권 문제와 기밀 정보 보호를 고려하여 전략적으로 대응할 필요가 있습니다. 한국 기업들은 디스커버리 대응 전략을 철저히 준비하고 법적 위험을 최소화하는 것이 중요합니다.

II. Impact of U.S. Patent Litigation on Third-Party Defendants

II. Impact of U.S. Patent Litigation on Third-Party Defendants

Manufacturing companies are often drawn into U.S. patent litigation as third-party defendants at the request of the primary defendants, who are typically purchasers of the accused products. Given that many Korean companies supply key components to U.S. manufacturers, it is not uncommon for them to be implicated in such cases as third-party defendants.

On December 12, 2024, Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted a motion filed by plaintiff Samsung Electronics, ordering third-party defendant Seoul Semiconductor to produce documents under a discovery request. (News Source: (Seoul Wire)).

In light of these developments, Korean manufacturers must gain a clear understanding of the legal standing of third-party defendants in U.S. patent litigation, the strategic considerations for plaintiffs, defendants, and third-party defendants, as well as how to prepare for discovery obligations in the U.S. legal system. The following discussion uses the names of the parties mentioned in the article for illustrative purposes but applies broadly to similar situations.

2.1 Legal Implications for Third-Party Defendants

2.1.1 Direct Legal Liability

Although Seoul Semiconductor was added as a third-party defendant, the primary plaintiff, Samsung Electronics, has asserted patent infringement claims solely against TCP. Consequently, the court’s rulings have the following characteristics:

No direct monetary liability for Seoul Semiconductor: Since Seoul Semiconductor is not the primary defendant, the court cannot impose direct liability for patent infringement or damages.
Discovery obligations remain enforceable: The court’s order compelling Seoul Semiconductor to produce documents is part of the discovery process and does not establish any legal liability.

2.1.2 Indirect Legal and Commercial Impacts

Despite not being a primary defendant, Seoul Semiconductor may experience indirect effects from the litigation due to its role as a supplier of the accused components:

Contractual and Commercial Relationships with TCP:
- Should TCP be found liable for patent infringement, it may assert reimbursement claims against Seoul Semiconductor, alleging that the supplied LED components or technologies contributed to the infringement.
- The extent of liability could depend on supply agreements, indemnification clauses, or warranties.
Implications for Seoul Semiconductor’s Technology:
- A finding of infringement against TCP could indirectly suggest that Seoul Semiconductor’s technology or manufacturing processes contributed to the infringement.
- This raises the potential risk of future lawsuits directly targeting Seoul Semiconductor.
Reputation and Business Relationships:
- Disclosures during litigation may expose Seoul Semiconductor’s proprietary technologies and processes to competitors.
- Such exposure could lead to further disputes and negatively impact customer relationships, including with TCP and other clients.

2.2 Binding Effect of Court Decisions

Non-binding Precedent for Third-Party Defendants:
- The court’s decision in this case directly resolves disputes between TCP and Samsung Electronics. Seoul Semiconductor, as a third-party defendant, is not bound by the findings.
Enforcement of Discovery Orders:
- Despite the lack of binding liability, Seoul Semiconductor must comply with discovery obligations throughout the litigation.
- Failure to comply may result in sanctions, such as fines or adverse inferences.

Conclusion

Cases involving third-party defendants are becoming increasingly common in U.S. patent litigation, especially for Korean manufacturers supplying critical components. Understanding the legal framework governing third-party defendants, preparing for discovery compliance, and formulating effective defense strategies are essential steps to mitigate risks and achieve favorable litigation outcomes.

[한국어 버전]

II. 제조사인 제3자 피고에게 미치는 미국 특허소송의 영향

제조 기업은 종종 미국 특허소송에서 피소 제품의 구매자인 피고에 의해 공급자로서 제3자 피고(Third-Party Defendant)로 소송에 끌어들여지는 경우가 있다. 한국의 많은 기업들은 미국 완제품 회사에 핵심 부품을 제조하여 공급하는 거래를 하기 때문에 미국 특허침해소송에서 이렇게 제3자 피고로 소송에 연루되는 일은 드물지 않다.

2024년 12월 12일, 미국 델라웨어주(州) 연방지방법원의 J. 니콜라스 란잔(J. Nicholas Ranjan) 판사가 원고인 삼성전자의 요청을 승인하며 제3자 피고인 서울반도체에게 증거 제출을 명령(미 디스커버리 절차상 증거생산명령)했다는 뉴스는 이러한 사례의 대표적 예시다. (기사 출처: 서울와이어).

이에 따라, 많은 한국 제조기업들은 미국 특허침해소송에서 제3자 피고가 어떤 법적 지위에 있는지, 원고와 피고 및 제3자 피고의 전략적 대응 방안은 무엇인지, 그리고 미국 소송의 디스커버리 절차에 대비하는 방법을 명확히 이해해야 한다. 이하에서는 독자의 이해를 돕기 위해 기사에서 언급된 사례를 구체적으로 예시로 활용하나, 이 내용이 특정 기업에만 국한된 쟁점은 아님을 분명히 하고자 한다.

2.1 제3자 피고에게 미치는 법적 영향

2.1.1 직접적인 법적 책임

서울반도체는 제3자 피고로 소송에 참여했지만, 원고인 삼성전자는 주된 피고인 TCP에 대해 특허 침해 책임을 주장하고 있습니다. 이에 따라 법원 판결은 다음과 같은 특징을 가집니다.

서울반도체의 직접적인 금전적 책임 부재:
서울반도체는 주된 피고가 아니므로, 법원은 서울반도체에게 직접적인 특허 침해 책임이나 손해배상 의무를 부과할 수 없습니다.
증거 제출 의무의 강제성:
법원이 서울반도체에게 문서 제출을 명령한 것은 소송 절차의 일환인 증거개시(discovery) 과정에 속합니다. 이는 서울반도체의 법적 책임을 확정하는 것이 아닙니다.

2.1.2 간접적인 법적 및 상업적 영향

서울반도체가 주된 피고는 아니지만, 피소 제품의 핵심 부품을 공급한 제조사로서 소송 결과에 따라 다음과 같은 간접적 영향을 받을 수 있습니다.

TCP와의 계약 및 상업적 관계:
- TCP가 특허 침해로 유죄 판결을 받을 경우, TCP는 서울반도체가 제공한 LED 제품이나 기술이 침해의 원인이라고 주장하며 구상 책임(reimbursement)을 요구할 수 있습니다.
- 이러한 책임의 범위는 공급 계약, 보증 조항, 또는 면책 조항에 따라 달라질 수 있습니다.
서울반도체 기술에 대한 특허 침해 연루 가능성:
- TCP가 특허 침해로 판결을 받으면, 서울반도체의 기술이나 제조 공정이 침해에 연루되었다는 점이 간접적으로 드러날 수 있습니다.
- 이는 향후 삼성전자가 서울반도체를 직접 상대로 특허 침해 소송을 제기할 가능성을 높입니다.
평판 및 거래 관계에 미치는 영향:
- 소송 과정에서 드러난 서울반도체의 기술 자료와 제조 공정 정보는 경쟁사에 유출될 위험이 있습니다.
- 이는 기술 경쟁력 약화 및 고객사(예: TCP)와의 신뢰 관계 훼손으로 이어질 수 있습니다.

2.2 법원 판결의 구속력

2.2.1 제3자 피고에 대한 비구속적 판결

이 사건에서 법원의 판결은 TCP와 삼성전자 간의 법적 분쟁 해결을 목적으로 합니다. 따라서 서울반도체는 판결에 직접적으로 구속되지 않습니다.

2.2.2 증거 제출 명령의 준수 의무

비록 판결에 따른 법적 책임은 없지만, 서울반도체는 소송 진행 동안 법원의 증거 제출 명령을 반드시 준수해야 합니다. 이를 거부하거나 소홀히 할 경우, 벌금이나 불이익 추정과 같은 법적 제재를 받을 수 있습니다.

결론

제조업체가 미국 특허소송에서 제3자 피고로 참여하는 사례는 증가하고 있습니다. 이러한 상황에 대비하기 위해 제3자 피고의 법적 지위와 책임 범위를 명확히 이해하고, 디스커버리 대응 및 효과적인 방어 전략을 준비하는 것이 필수적입니다.

제3자 피고는 직접적인 책임을 지지 않더라도, 소송 결과에 따른 간접적 영향과 상업적 리스크를 고려하여 신속하고 철저한 법적 대응 체계를 갖추어야 합니다.

I. Understanding the Legal Status of Third-Party Defendants in U.S. Patent Litigation

I. Understanding the Legal Status of Third-Party Defendants in U.S. Patent Litigation

1. Legal Status of Third-Party Defendants

1.1 Definition

A third-party defendant is a party brought into a lawsuit through a procedural mechanism under U.S. civil procedure rules, specifically Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14. Unlike primary defendants, third-party defendants are added to the case by an existing defendant seeking to shift liability or establish contribution or indemnification claims.

1.2 Procedure for Adding Third-Party Defendants

As exemplified by Seoul Semiconductor’s involvement, the procedure follows Rule 14 - Impleader under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This allows a defendant to bring a third party into the case if that party may be liable for all or part of the plaintiff’s claims. In this instance, Seoul Semiconductor was implicated as a supplier of components alleged to contribute to the infringement.

1.3 Role and Obligations

Once added, third-party defendants, such as Seoul Semiconductor, may support the defense strategies of the primary defendant (TCP) or face liability for part or all of the plaintiff’s (Samsung’s) claims. Third-party defendants also have the right to counter or refute the primary defendant’s assertions and directly engage in legal disputes with the plaintiff.

In this case, the court’s discovery order compelling Seoul Semiconductor to produce documents highlights its possession of relevant technical and factual information critical to the litigation. Consequently, third-party defendants must comply with evidence production, prepare rebuttal materials, and provide testimony as required.

1.4 Key Characteristics of Third-Party Defendants

A third-party defendant enters litigation as a result of the primary defendant’s impleader action rather than a direct claim by the plaintiff. Despite this indirect involvement, the actions, evidence, and defenses presented by the third-party defendant can significantly influence the case’s outcome. Courts may impose obligations, including document production, deposition participation, and cost-sharing responsibilities.

Conclusion

Leveraging Hidden Patent Value to Gain Market Leadership and Corporate Value

Executives in technology-driven companies recognize the strategic importance of patents. A robust patent portfolio strengthens market dominance, secures favorable terms in licensing negotiations, and acts as a deterrent in competitive disputes. However, many executives and investors perceive patents as having minimal impact on market value or as assets that do not directly contribute to revenue growth. This perspective overlooks the economic potential of well-managed patent portfolios and their ability to enhance corporate value.

Strategies for Communicating Patent Value

To ensure that investors and executives fully appreciate the value of patents, companies must analyze their market landscape through the lens of intellectual property and deliver clear, patent-driven IR (Investor Relations) reports. Despite this need, existing tools to measure the contribution of patent portfolios to market competitiveness and financial performance remain underdeveloped.

Why Patent Portfolio Value Remains Hidden

Although awareness of patents' role in boosting corporate value is growing, traditional methods of patent analysis face challenges in demonstrating short-term returns. Existing frameworks often emphasize qualitative assessments, such as claim scope and alignment with core technologies, without clearly illustrating how patents translate into financial gains.

Many investors and analysts lack tools to accurately assess patent value. As a result, patents frequently remain hidden assets—recognized for their strategic significance but excluded from standardized financial metrics.

Japan's New Disclosure Requirements

To address these issues, Japan recently revised its "Intellectual Property and Intangible Asset Governance Guidelines," requiring companies to disclose their patent landscapes. This regulation was introduced to tackle the undervaluation of Japanese companies, where nearly half of the firms listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange 500 Index have a price-to-book ratio (PBR) below 1.

By mandating greater transparency regarding patent and intangible asset disclosures, policymakers aim to bridge the gap between a company’s intrinsic value and its market perception. This reform will highlight patents not only as legal rights or competitive safeguards but also as critical assets that influence investment profiles and spotlight the contributions of corporate IP teams.

Toward a Stronger Patent Valuation Paradigm

Japan's policy shift has drawn global attention to patents as drivers of innovation and strategic growth. To capitalize on this evolving environment, business leaders should focus on the following:

Market Landscape Analysis:
- Assess market dynamics and competitors’ positions through comprehensive landscape analyses.
Development of Quantitative Metrics:
- Create or adopt analytical frameworks that demonstrate clear links between patent strength and financial performance, including licensing revenue, market share growth, and litigation risk mitigation.
Enhanced Cross-Department Collaboration:
- Foster collaboration between R&D, legal, finance, product strategy, marketing, and sales teams to evaluate the economic potential of individual patents or portfolios and align patent strategies with corporate goals.
Transparent Reporting Systems:
- Emulate Japan’s guidelines by disclosing portfolio size, technological coverage, and commercialization potential to showcase how patents support corporate vision and growth strategies.
Proactive Portfolio Management:
- Regularly benchmark patent holdings against competitors, divest underperforming assets and pursue licensing opportunities for unused patents. Simultaneously, invest in open innovation and protect core technologies for future growth.

Conclusion

As policymakers and financial analysts place greater emphasis on intangible assets, patents are becoming a more prominent factor in corporate valuation.

By adopting transparent reporting systems, leveraging advanced analytical tools, and integrating patent strategies with business objectives, companies can dispel misconceptions about patents’ limited impact on market value. This approach not only unlocks the potential of patents but also strengthens market positioning and lays the foundation for long-term growth. Furthermore, it creates opportunities to highlight the role and importance of corporate intellectual property teams.

특허의 숨겨진 가치를 활용하여 시장 주도권과 기업 가치를 인정받을 수 있다

기술 중심 기업의 최고 경영진은 특허의 전략적 중요성을 잘 인식하고 있다. 탄탄한 특허 포트폴리오는 시장 지배력을 강화하고, 라이선스 협상에서 유리한 조건을 확보하며, 경쟁 분쟁에서 억제력으로 작용할 수 있다. 그러나 많은 경영진과 투자자들은 특허가 기업의 시장 가치에 실질적으로 영향을 미치지 않거나, 수익을 직접적으로 증가시키지 않는다는 인식을 가지고 있다. 이는 잘 관리된 특허 포트폴리오의 경제적 잠재력을 간과하는 것이다.

특허의 경제적 가치 전달 전략

투자자와 경영진이 특허의 가치를 명확히 이해하도록 하기 위해서는 특허 관점에서 시장 지형을 분석하고, 사업 가치를 반영한 명확한 IR(Investor Relations) 보고서를 제공해야 한다. 하지만 현재까지 특허 포트폴리오가 기업의 시장 경쟁력과 재무 성과에 미치는 기여도를 측정하는 도구는 충분히 개발되지 않았다.

특허 포트폴리오 가치가 숨겨진 이유

특허 보호가 기업의 시장 가치를 높일 수 있다는 인식이 확산되고 있음에도 불구하고, 기존 특허 분석 방법은 단기적 가치를 입증하는 데 한계가 있다. 전통적 분석 프레임워크는 청구항 범위와 핵심 기술과의 정렬 등 정성적 평가에 중점을 두며, 특허가 재정적 이익으로 이어지는 구체적 경로를 명확히 보여주지 않는다.

많은 투자자와 분석가들은 특허 가치를 평가할 수 있는 도구를 보유하지 못하고 있으며, 이로 인해 특허는 전략적 중요성은 인정받지만 재무 지표에는 포함되지 않는 '숨겨진 자산'으로 남아 있다.

일본의 새로운 공시 요구 사항

이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해 일본에서는 '지식재산 및 무형자산 거버넌스 가이드라인'을 개정해 특허 지형(Patent Landscape)을 공개하도록 요구하고 있다. 이는 주가순자산비율(PBR)이 1 미만인 기업이 다수인 상황에서 일본 기업의 가치 저평가 문제를 해결하려는 시도이다.

특허 자산과 기타 무형 자산을 투명하게 공개함으로써, 기업의 실제 가치와 시장 인식 간 격차를 해소하고자 한다. 이러한 변화는 특허가 법적 권리나 경쟁 보호 수단을 넘어 기업의 투자 프로필에 영향을 미치는 중요한 자산임을 강조하며, 기업 내 특허팀의 역할을 강화하는 계기가 될 것이다.

더 강력한 특허 가치 평가 패러다임을 향하여

일본의 정책 변화는 특허가 전략적 성장의 핵심 동력임을 국제적으로 인식시키는 계기를 제공한다. 이에 따라 기업 리더들은 새로운 환경을 활용하기 위해 다음과 같은 점들을 고려해야 한다.

시장 지형 분석:
- 경쟁사 포지션을 분석하고 시장 특성을 명확히 파악할 수 있는 도구를 도입해야 한다.
특허의 정량적 지표 개발:
- 특허 강점과 재정적 성과 간 연관성을 입증할 수 있는 분석 프레임워크를 개발하여, 라이선스 수익, 시장 점유율 확대, 소송 위험 감소 등에서 특허의 가치를 증명해야 한다.
부서 간 협업 강화:
- 연구개발(R&D), 법무, 재무, 상품전략, 마케팅 및 영업팀 간 협업을 통해 각 특허 또는 특허군의 경제적 수익 가능성을 평가하고 전략을 통합해야 한다.
투명한 보고 체계 구축:
- 일본 가이드라인을 참고하여 포트폴리오 규모, 기술 적용 범위, 상업화 가능성 등을 공개함으로써 시장 비전과 성장 전략을 명확히 보여주어야 한다.
적극적인 포트폴리오 관리:
- 산업군 내 경쟁사와 특허 보유 현황을 비교 분석하고, 불필요한 자산은 처분하며, 미활용 특허에 대한 라이선스 거래를 추진해야 한다. 동시에, 개방형 혁신 활동과 핵심 기술 보호를 위한 지속적인 투자를 강화해야 한다.

결론

정책 입안자와 금융 분석가들이 무형 자산에 대한 중요성을 인식하면서, 특허는 기업 가치 평가의 핵심 요소로 자리 잡고 있다.

투명한 보고 체계를 도입하고, 정량적 분석 도구를 활용하며, 특허 전략을 비즈니스 목표와 연계함으로써, 특허가 시장 가치에 미치는 영향이 미미하다는 오해를 극복할 수 있다. 이러한 접근은 특허의 잠재력을 극대화하고, 시장에서 입지를 강화하며, 장기적인 성장 기반을 마련하는 데 기여할 것이다. 또한, 기업의 지식재산팀의 역할과 중요성을 재조명할 수 있는 기회를 제공할 것이다.

The Pressure of Success and the Success Trap: Challenges That Must Be Overcome

The Pressure of Success and the Success Trap: Challenges That Must Be Overcome

The pressure to sustain success frequently spawns a “success trap,” in which individuals and organizations cling to the formulas that worked in the past, thereby limiting their capacity to adapt to changing conditions. This unwillingness to deviate from the status quo stifles innovation, fosters a fear of failure, and can lead to a vicious cycle of stagnation and eventual decline.

To break free from both the success trap and the pressure that fuels it, we must re-examine our understanding of success. Though many of these ideas may be familiar, they are vital enough to bear repeating.

1. Embrace Failure as an Opportunity for Learning and Innovation

Failure should be viewed as a necessary step toward progress. Rather than dismissing it as an error to avoid at all costs, organizations can treat failure as valuable feedback. Programs like Google’s 20% Time or 3M’s 15% Rule exemplify this principle, giving employees the space to explore new ideas and, at times, fail without fear of reprisal. In doing so, these companies foster cultures where breakthroughs can thrive.

2. Look Beyond Short-Term Wins to Long-Term Goals

An overemphasis on immediate results often comes at the expense of future growth. Amazon provides a telling example: early in its history, it prioritized market share over near-term profitability to lay the groundwork for enduring success. Establishing a long-term vision, and making decisions aligned with it, is essential for organizations that wish to maintain relevance and adaptability.

3. Build a Flexible, Continually Learning Organization

Every member of an organization should be encouraged to learn and grow. “Everyone can learn from anyone” captures the essence of this principle. By cultivating open-mindedness, collaboration, and ongoing education, teams become better equipped to adapt to shifting challenges. Meaningful change begins with a readiness to learn.

4. Recruit or Develop Leadership with Fresh Perspectives

Transforming leadership is central to escaping the success trap. This change is not as simple as replacing older leaders with younger ones; rather, it involves welcoming leaders who bring new ideas and strategies. IBM, for example, successfully overcame a major crisis by bringing in outside leadership with innovative perspectives. Leaders who only chase stability may ultimately stifle the very innovation that is crucial for survival.

Success Is a Process, Not a Destination

The pressure of success and the success trap represent fundamental challenges for individuals and organizations alike. Overreliance on past achievements can choke off new ideas, while fear of failure inhibits meaningful experimentation. To conquer these hurdles, organizations must cultivate a culture that sees failure as a driver for growth, fosters a flexible mindset, and pursues long-term objectives. Recognizing that success is an ongoing journey—rather than an endpoint—enables teams to remain resilient and to flourish through persistent learning and adaptation.

Judicial Approaches to the Standard of Proof in Civil Litigation: Contrasts Between Civil Law and Common Law Traditions

Judicial Approaches to the Standard of Proof in Civil Litigation: Contrasts Between Civil Law and Common Law Traditions

A notable distinction in civil litigation emerges when comparing how courts in civil law versus common law jurisdictions view the standard of proof.

For example, in Korean civil proceedings, merely suggesting that a particular fact might be true is insufficient. Instead, courts demand a high level of probability—one that leaves virtually no room for reasonable doubt. By contrast, U.S. courts apply the “preponderance of evidence” standard, which requires that the evidence backing a specific claim outweigh any evidence for the opposing position. Put simply, the party must show that its claim is more likely true than not.

In criminal proceedings, however, the standard of proof is far more stringent. In the United States, courts use the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal cases, which closely mirrors the threshold Korean courts impose in civil litigation.

Why Do These Differences Arise?

I propose that these variations reflect the distinct levels of judicial involvement in evidence-gathering and investigative processes across legal systems. To explore this hypothesis, I surveyed a broad range of domestic and international academic studies.

In the United States, gaining access to trial court rulings—even from lower courts—is relatively straightforward, enabling researchers to analyze judicial perspectives and case precedents. In Korea, however, only Supreme Court decisions are generally available to the public. This limited access forces researchers to depend heavily on existing scholarship by those with privileged or broader access to court rulings. The upshot is a research process that demands more time, effort, and reliance on secondary sources.

Conclusion

Given these challenges, a deeper, more comprehensive investigation is warranted to clarify how these legal frameworks diverge. By examining the extent to which courts engage in evidence collection and analysis, and by delving into how those roles vary between civil law and common law traditions, researchers may ultimately uncover the underlying factors that drive differing standards of proof.

Why Simply Issuing “Better Patents” Will Not Solve the System’s Complexities

Why Simply Issuing “Better Patents” Will Not Solve the System’s Complexities

Representative Massie’s recent proposal to abolish the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rests on the argument that strengthening patent examination alone can address longstanding issues in the U.S. patent system. His question—“Why not just issue better patents to begin with?”—may sound like a simple fix, but it overlooks the fundamental complexities of patent prosecution and post-grant review. Below are four key points illustrating why Massie’s approach is too narrow.

1. Time Constraints in Patent Examination

A central issue is the significant time pressure placed on patent examiners. During each prosecution round, examiners often have fewer than 24 hours to review voluminous applications, conduct prior art searches, and draft office actions. Expecting them to guarantee “better patents” under such conditions is unrealistic. Representative Massie’s vision assumes an ideal setting in which examiners have abundant time and resources—an assumption that simply does not align with current realities.

2. The Critical Role of the PTAB

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) serves a vital function in maintaining patent quality. Its appeal division provides an objective review of examiner rejections, while its trial division (created under the America Invents Act) determines the validity of granted patents through inter partes review (IPR) and related proceedings. Eliminating the PTAB would remove this essential mechanism for weeding out invalid or overly broad patents, ultimately impairing innovation and competitive markets. Without the PTAB, unaddressed errors in the examination process could proliferate.

3. Examination Quality vs. Post-Grant Review

Massie’s proposal suggests that heightened examination quality could replace the need for post-grant review. However, patent examination is inherently subject to human judgment, time pressures, and incomplete information—inevitable sources of error. The PTAB functions as a second line of defense, addressing these mistakes through rigorous adjudication. Without it, the system risks becoming more susceptible to unresolved disputes and abusive practices.

4. The Need for Systemic Reform

Although Representative Massie’s call to “just issue better patents” underscores a legitimate concern—improving patent quality—his plan sidesteps broader structural challenges. Bolstering the patent system requires measures such as:

Increasing examiner hiring and training
Extending the time allocated per application
Enhancing prior art searching capabilities and databases
Strengthening transparency during the prosecution process
Creating well-defined and precise examination guidelines

Until these reforms are implemented, the PTAB remains indispensable for ensuring public trust and correcting errors that slip through the initial examination phase.

Conclusion

Massie’s plan to abolish the PTAB and rely solely on the notion of “better patents” is far less feasible than it appears. Significant systemic overhaul—from expanded examiner staffing to more robust training and resources—would be necessary to make that vision a reality. In the meantime, the PTAB offers a critical safeguard against invalid patents and serves to stabilize the broader patent environment.

A more balanced solution, therefore, is to improve examination practices—dedicating more time, personnel, and technical resources—while preserving the PTAB as a vital oversight mechanism. Removing the PTAB entirely would ultimately undermine the very innovation the patent system is meant to foster.

Why Excelling at Individual Tasks Won’t Necessarily Make You a Great Leader

Why Excelling at Individual Tasks Won’t Necessarily Make You a Great Leader

“Being good at individual work doesn’t necessarily make someone a great leader.” This observation points to a profound truth: leadership differs drastically from personal skill or expertise. Where an accomplished practitioner might be lauded for their output, a leader’s mandate lies in empowering others to perform at their best and produce meaningful results. When leaders fixate on day-to-day tasks, not only do they risk undermining the team’s morale, but they also court personal burnout. Even the most capable professionals, trapped in this cycle, may come to doubt their suitability for leadership and feel stifled by their own limitations.

Yet one principle endures across eras and industries: “It all comes down to people.” History’s greatest thinkers and business leaders have consistently echoed this idea, summed up in the phrase, “Everything depends on people.” Ultimately, the core leadership skill is mastering the art of understanding and engaging with those around you.

I have come to appreciate this perspective over more than 14 years of experience as a senior legal executive in both corporate and law firm environments. Despite considerable tenure, I still grapple with relinquishing day-to-day operational details—revisiting delegated tasks and offering input on matters where I should ideally step aside. Over time, I’ve realized that this approach simply isn’t sustainable: physical limits and the reality of burnout loom ever closer.

What, then, is the solution? I see no choice but to cultivate or recruit a “legacy carrier” who can serve as another version of me, eventually inheriting my role. The challenge here is formidable: if it’s difficult to fully understand a spouse even after decades together, how can one reliably assess someone’s dispositions and strengths in a far shorter period?

High-pressure contexts such as patent litigation only amplify this tension. Minor oversights can reverse fortunes entirely, making it feel nearly impossible to entrust critical duties to anyone else. Small wonder, then, that delegation may seem an insurmountable task.

I know what needs to be done; the bigger hurdle is “how.” I have yet to find a definitive answer. Nonetheless, I believe the first step is acknowledging the complexity of this transition and committing to seek out feasible solutions. Recognizing the difficulty of stepping aside—and taking tangible steps to develop successors—is the key to breaking the cycle of overwork. By doing so, leaders can reclaim the true essence of their roles and ensure the entire organization thrives, rather than merely surviving under the weight of one person’s relentless efforts.

The success equation for practitioners is different from the success equation for leaders.

How AI and Strategic Drafting Can Reshape the Patent Landscape

How AI and Strategic Drafting Can Reshape the Patent Landscape

December 2, 2024 — In reviewing an insightful article by Dr. Ian Schick, I encountered a compelling argument about the transformative potential of artificial intelligence in the patent drafting process. Dr. Schick suggests that AI can streamline labor-intensive tasks—like preparing detailed descriptions and refining drawings—freeing patent professionals to devote their expertise to high-value matters such as claim drafting and inventor interviews. He anticipates that this shift could reduce the total drafting time per application from approximately 20 hours to around 6.7 hours, thereby lowering service fees to one-third of their current level.

While I hesitate to label detailed descriptions and drawings as “low-value,” there is no denying they consume a significant share of the preparation effort. Using AI to automate portions of these steps appears both logical and efficient, ultimately enhancing overall patent quality. Notably, Dr. Schick’s illustrative figures and tables break down the drafting process in a manner that highlights each task’s value—though I would have preferred to see prior art investigation more prominently included, as it is integral to most filings.

Why Detailed Descriptions and Drawings Are Crucial

In practice, the initial specification’s thoroughness often outweighs the importance of the original claim set. Rarely do claims issue without amendment; examiners commonly identify grounds for rejection that lead to strategic adjustments. When amending claims, an applicant must stay within what is explicitly or implicitly disclosed in the filed specification. Therefore, the application’s initial level of detail profoundly influences the ultimate patent scope.

Moreover, companies increasingly recognize the importance of accounting for European patent standards at the outset. Filings tailored to U.S. or Korean rules can falter under Europe’s more exacting scrutiny, where Article 84 objections or issues with non-allowable intermediate generalizations frequently arise. A robust drafting strategy should anticipate these hurdles by integrating European requirements from the beginning.

Drafting Strategies and the Role of AI

From a drafting standpoint, an effective approach is to conceptualize the overall inventive idea through schematic diagrams or “conceptual figures,” and then systematically introduce variations as they become clear in later product-development stages. Highlighting which features are essential, optional, or purely enhancements clarifies the invention’s scope. At the same time, such categorization—if done too rigidly—might inadvertently bolster an examiner’s view that a claimed invention is an obvious combination of known elements. Caution and balanced drafting are therefore prudent.

For patents serving as strategic “offensive weapons,” it is well worth investing time and resources in a detailed specification, high-quality figures, and a thorough review of relevant prior art. Here, AI offers considerable advantages: in my own practice, I have used ChatGPT-4 to review and refine sections of a recently disclosed specification on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, finding it especially helpful in reducing preparation time without sacrificing quality.

The Cost Equation

It is instructive to consider cost benchmarks. Mid-level associates at major U.S. law firms often command hourly billing rates near $750. Based on international data comparing the United States and Korea, the U.S. purchasing power parity (PPP) is about 1.4 times higher, with average wages (in PPP terms) around 1.75 times higher. By that logic, a mid-level associate in Korea might have a reasonably set billing rate of roughly $429 (KRW 600,000) per hour. At 20 hours of drafting, an application would therefore cost about $8,579 (KRW 12 million). Yet, outside highly specialized areas such as pharmaceuticals, achieving such fee levels in Korea can be challenging.

The Strategic Value of In-House Patent Teams

Ultimately, these considerations highlight the pivotal role of corporate patent counsel. If in-house teams conduct inventor interviews, compile prior art research, and prepare a thorough factual record, outside counsel can operate more efficiently, reducing the need for extensive revisions. This streamlined process not only enables law firms to stay within a constrained budget but also boosts outcomes, giving in-house professionals a tangible incentive to excel.

If organizations recognize that such a collaborative framework yields better patent coverage and strategic positioning—while also controlling costs—then the contributions of in-house patent personnel become even more vital. AI is set to amplify these benefits, allowing companies to meet the demands of a competitive global patent landscape more effectively than ever.

Why AI Can Make Patent Attorneys Twice as Valuable

The Strategic Importance of In-House Counsel and AI Adoption

In light of the turbulent circumstances in Korea, I was initially reluctant to share these observations. However, the insights offered by Daniel Lewis, CEO of LegalOn, are both timely and thought-provoking, warranting broader discussion. Lewis references the renowned “Cravath Scale,” established by Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP—an elite U.S. law firm that compensates 2024 law school graduates at a base salary of $225,000 while billing clients at rates of $600 to $800 per hour. In contrast, companies that develop in-house legal teams can reportedly reduce these legal expenses by up to 80–90%. This gap stands to widen as external firm rates climb, particularly when paired with advances in AI.

Daniel Lewis's Linkedin

One of the central advantages of in-house counsel is their freedom from the hourly billing model. By leveraging AI solutions, such as for routine contract review, in-house teams can direct more resources toward complex and strategic tasks. This approach not only curbs legal spending but also bolsters a company’s overall legal efficacy—a convincing case for bolstering internal legal capacity with cutting-edge technology.

Beyond Cost Savings: The Role of In-House Patent Teams

This same logic extends to in-house patent counsel, though their scope of responsibilities goes far beyond simple cost-efficiency. Outside attorneys and patent agents often lack a deep familiarity with a company’s technological background or the cumulative industry knowledge critical to building robust patent and IP strategies. In-house patent teams fill this gap by offering technical insights that a person of ordinary skill in the art would naturally consider and by guiding external counsel more effectively.

It is not unusual for outside advisors—due to time constraints or limited sector-specific expertise—to underutilize widely recognized industry standards or technical “common sense” when presenting arguments to examiners, administrative tribunals, or judges. In this context, in-house legal and patent teams serve not merely as a means to reduce expenditures, but as essential assets for fostering institutional knowledge, optimizing legal and patent oversight, and ultimately advancing the company’s broader legal and technological strategies.

Conclusion

While recent events in Korea may have momentarily given pause to sharing these perspectives, it remains abundantly clear that in-house counsel—particularly those augmented by AI—can deliver substantial and far-reaching benefits. From curbing legal costs to nurturing deep sector-specific insights, the presence of an internal legal or patent team is fundamental to executing a forward-looking, cost-effective, and strategically sound legal framework.

The Echo Chamber Phenomenon and Possible Solutions

Definition

The “echo chamber” phenomenon occurs when individuals repeatedly encounter information that aligns with their existing beliefs, leading those homogeneous views to grow stronger over time. The term is borrowed from the way sound resonates and intensifies in an acoustic chamber, and it is most prevalent on online platforms and social media. Factors such as algorithm-driven content recommendations, confirmation bias, and group polarization intersect, creating an environment where users are exposed to a narrowly filtered set of information.

1. Causes of Echo Chambers

Algorithmic Filtering
Social media recommendation systems rely on users’ past behaviors—such as clicks, likes, and searches—to personalize content. This approach often prioritizes information similar to users’ existing opinions, while opposing or diverse perspectives receive less visibility.
Confirmation Bias
Individuals naturally seek and value information that confirms their beliefs, while ignoring or rejecting opposing views. This bias amplifies the reinforcement of like-minded opinions.
Group Polarization
When people who share similar viewpoints congregate, their views can become more extreme over time. Online communities and social networks often accelerate this trend because they foster like-minded clusters.
Information Overload and Selective Exposure
In a world of overwhelming information, it is easier for people to focus on content that matches their preferences. This selective exposure, combined with algorithmic filtering, deepens the echo chamber effect.

2. Key Consequences of Echo Chambers

Heightened Social and Political Polarization
Without exposure to diverse viewpoints, individuals’ existing beliefs become more rigid, making dialogue or compromise between different groups increasingly difficult.
Spread of Misinformation and Fake News
Repeated circulation of a particular perspective can lead people to accept it as truth, regardless of factual accuracy. Some studies show that misinformation often travels faster than verified facts in these closed environments.
Diminished Critical Thinking Skills
Limited exposure to differing viewpoints reduces the capacity to reflect on or question one’s own beliefs, increasing vulnerability to biased or distorted reasoning.

3. Strategies to Mitigate the Echo Chamber Effect

Introducing Diversity Metrics
One approach is to incorporate “diversity metrics” into content recommendation algorithms. By purposefully showcasing content that diverges from users’ current preferences, platforms can encourage more balanced exposure. For instance, news platforms that employ diversity-oriented algorithms allow users to encounter a range of viewpoints.
Intentional Exposure (Diversity-by-Design)
Platforms can proactively promote content or discussions that present varied perspectives. Rather than highlighting strictly oppositional viewpoints that may cause immediate rejection, offering constructive counter-arguments or fact-checking resources can boost engagement and learning. An example is the nonprofit Braver Angels in the United States, which facilitates dialogue between individuals with opposing views to temper extreme polarization.
Media Literacy Education
Users benefit from learning to evaluate sources critically and remain open to multiple perspectives. Building these skills strengthens independent thought and lessens the hold of confirmation bias.
Policy Interventions
Regulatory measures could limit the reach of extremely biased or radical content and prioritize reliable sources in content feeds. Such guidelines help create a more balanced information environment.
Deliberative Democracy
By organizing both offline and online forums where a diverse array of stakeholders can gather, discuss issues, and work toward consensus, communities can mitigate polarization. An example is Taiwan’s vTaiwan platform, which uses digital tools to facilitate direct public participation and deliberation among varied perspectives.

Conclusion

The echo chamber phenomenon—driven by algorithmic recommendation systems and human biases—represents a significant challenge in modern society. It can exacerbate social conflict, disseminate misinformation, and erode critical thinking skills.

Addressing these issues calls for improvements in platform design, greater individual awareness, and supportive policy measures. By fostering exposure to diverse viewpoints, enhancing media literacy, and practicing deliberative democracy, it is possible to reduce the negative impacts of echo chambers and cultivate a healthier information ecosystem.

The Future of Quantum Computing and Cryptocurrencies: Questions Raised by the Willow Chip

Google’s recently unveiled quantum computing chip, known as Willow, suggests it could accomplish computations in mere minutes that would take classical supercomputers billions of years. This raises significant concerns across modern security systems, including cryptocurrencies. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer might be able to brute-force passwords and cryptographic keys, posing a particularly serious threat to blockchain-based financial ecosystems. The pressing question is whether Willow—or similar chips—could actually undermine the security models that cryptocurrencies rely on.

Quantum Computing and Vulnerabilities in Existing Cryptography

SHA-256 and ECDSA in Bitcoin

Bitcoin employs SHA-256 to validate block headers and execute Proof of Work (PoW). SHA-256 produces a 256-bit hash, and attempting to reverse-engineer the original input from the hash is computationally infeasible with current technology.

Additionally, Bitcoin uses ECDSA (Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm) to verify transaction signatures. ECDSA’s security is based on the intractability of the Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm Problem (ECDLP). To break a 256-bit key by brute force, approximately 2 to the power of 256 operations would be required—an astronomically large number far beyond the capabilities of present-day supercomputers.

Quantum Algorithms: Shor’s Algorithm and Grover’s Algorithm

Quantum computing introduces two particularly important algorithms that could threaten existing cryptographic infrastructures:

Shor’s Algorithm: Capable of efficiently factoring integers and solving discrete logarithm problems. It could potentially break elliptic-curve-based cryptosystems like ECDSA in polynomial time.

Grover’s Algorithm: Designed to search large datasets more rapidly than classical approaches. Applied to hash algorithms (e.g., SHA-256), it can reduce the brute-force search space from $N$ to $\sqrt{N}$ . However, Grover’s Algorithm does not destroy the collision-resistance property of hash functions; it primarily boosts the search process.

Required Qubits and Error Correction

Estimates suggest that breaking a 256-bit private key via Shor’s Algorithm would require roughly 1,500 to 3,000 logical qubits. Quantum computers are highly susceptible to decoherence, noise, and gate errors, necessitating sophisticated Quantum Error Correction (QEC). In practice, creating one logical qubit often requires upward of a thousand physical qubits.

Hence, deploying 1,500–3,000 logical qubits could demand millions of physical qubits—a scale that is far from currently realizable with today’s hardware.

Google’s Willow Chip: Error Correction and Scalability at the Forefront

Google’s Willow chip highlights Exponential Error Suppression as a key advancement. By using a QEC scheme such as Surface Code, multiple physical qubits protect a single logical qubit, and enlarging the lattice (e.g., from 3×3 to 5×5 to 7×7) can cut error rates in half each time.

This is a critical departure from the traditional expectation that more qubits inevitably bring more noise.

Meet Willow, our state-of-the-art quantum chip (Google Quantum AI)

Willow also introduces a real-time error correction mechanism, which allows immediate fixes when an error is detected, rather than risking data loss during calculation. This method preserves quantum information mid-computation and is viewed as a milestone toward “quantum computer scalability.”

However, Willow currently features only 105 physical qubits, meaning its capacity to sustain robust logical qubits and large-scale error correction remains constrained.

To date, there is no documented case of quantum computers—Willow included—successfully breaking blockchain encryption or other major cryptographic systems.

Threats from Quantum Computing and Responses in the Cryptocurrency Ecosystem

Advances in quantum computing pose new challenges for cryptography-driven systems.

Presently, though, there is still enough time for the cryptocurrency ecosystem to formulate countermeasures.

Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC), which focuses on algorithms believed to be secure against quantum attacks, is already under active consideration by international standards organizations (e.g., the NIST PQC Project).

Nonetheless, shifting to PQC might introduce short-term market volatility and shake investor confidence.

Technical Hurdles and Costs for Existing Blockchains

Once quantum computing reaches practical maturity, ECDSA and SHA-256 could become vulnerable to Shor’s and Grover’s algorithms, respectively.

Mitigating these risks calls for moving to quantum-resistant cryptography, but a simple soft fork—which preserves compatibility with previous protocols—likely will not suffice. Significantly altering the blockchain’s core cryptography and consensus requires a hard fork, leading to a complicated consensus process among network participants, possible compatibility breakage, and extensive infrastructure overhauls.

Opportunities and Potential in Quantum-Resistant Blockchains

Quantum-resistant blockchains could do more than just bolster security. They could mark a broader technological turning point for the reliability and sustainability of distributed ledger systems.

Combining novel cryptographic algorithms with updated blockchain architectures may yield faster, safer, and more scalable networks.

However, transitioning large existing networks—already home to substantial user bases and asset holdings—would be daunting.

It would require careful stages of consensus, asset migration, and upgrades that are not trivial to orchestrate.

Conclusion: The Challenges and Innovations Enabled by Quantum Computing

The adage “There is no unbreakable cryptography—only cryptography that has not yet been broken” underscores the inherent vulnerability of cryptography-backed cryptocurrencies.

Quantum computing dramatically highlights this vulnerability, while simultaneously driving technological innovation aimed at plugging these gaps.

In the future of cryptocurrency and blockchain, grappling with quantum threats—while also leveraging them as opportunities for growth—appears inevitable.

In the coming “post-quantum” era, quantum computing will offer both daunting challenges and new horizons for digital assets and decentralized networks, revealing possibilities beyond our current imagination. [E.O.D]

The Etymology and Origins of Patents

The term "patent" originates from the Latin word "patere", which means "to open" or "to make public." It evolved from the medieval Latin phrase "litterae patentes", meaning "open letters." These were official documents issued by a monarch or government to grant rights or privileges, intentionally left unsealed so they could be publicly read and verified.

Historical Background and Evolution

1. Use in Medieval Europe

The concept of "litterae patentes" emerged in medieval Europe, where monarchs issued open letters granting land, exclusive rights, or privileges to individuals or groups. These documents served as public guarantees of the rights conferred upon the recipients.

2. Transition to Modern Meaning

During the 15th century, the concept of patents began to evolve into granting exclusive rights for inventions or technological advancements. The Republic of Venice enacted the first known patent law in 1474, granting inventors a 10-year monopoly on their inventions in exchange for public disclosure of the details. This marked the beginning of the modern understanding of patents as a tool to encourage innovation by balancing exclusivity with knowledge sharing.

3. Development in England

In 17th-century England, "Letters Patent" were issued not only for inventions but also for granting commercial monopolies. For instance, during the reign of Elizabeth I, monopolies were often granted for manufacturing and trade. However, widespread abuse of this system led to the Statute of Monopolies in 1624, which restricted the granting of patents to inventions and innovations, establishing the foundation for the modern patent system.

4. The U.S. and the Modern Patent System

The U.S. Constitution (1787) explicitly empowered Congress to promote "the progress of science and useful arts" by securing exclusive rights for inventors. This set the stage for the modern patent system, which spread globally as a means to protect innovation while encouraging public disclosure of technological advancements.

Conclusion

The term "patent", rooted in the concept of "open rights", has evolved into a legal mechanism where inventors disclose their innovations to the public in exchange for a temporary monopoly. This system balances the protection of intellectual property with the promotion of technological progress and remains a cornerstone of innovation-driven economies.

- chatGPT 4o

Wednesday, July 3, 2024

How does Rule 36 affect the development of patent law jurisprudence?

The article provides an interesting discussion on how US Inventor, Inc. (USI) has filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to reconsider its use of Rule 36. USI argues that Rule 36, which allows for one-word affirmances without opinion, hinders the development of patent law, biases cases toward affirmance, and burdens future litigants by not resolving issues thoroughly.

Rule 36 permits the CAFC to affirm lower court decisions without an opinion if the decision has no precedential value and meets specific conditions, potentially impacting the fairness of judicial outcomes.

How does Rule 36 affect the development of patent law jurisprudence?

https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/07/02/us-inventor-urges-cafc-review-implementation-rule-36