Jun-Seok Park, The U.S. Supreme Court Intervention in Patent Cases and the Changes in Status of CAFC, Journal of Industrial Property, Vol.73, pp.1-70.
<Abstract>
With enforcement of the centralized jurisdiction system in 2016, the appearance of the Korean Patent Court has become more similar to that of the CAFC, which has the identity of an appellate court specializing in patents. In the past, in the US, there was a controversy over whether the CAFC had the real identity of a 'patent special court', and now there is another controversy over what role the CAFC plays as a patent court, or what status it actually has. If the meaning of these controversies surrounding CAFC's identity and its role could be fully understood, it is possible to get a good precedent for establishing a desirable relationship between the Supreme Court and the Patent Court in Korea in the future, or use such understanding as an opportunity to teach the other side. For that purpose, this paper reviewed the controversies surrounding the role and actual status of CAFC as a specialized patent court one after another. There are two main controversial issues. First, there is controversy over whether CAFC will be able to regain its past status as the de facto highest court in patent cases in the future. After analyzing the related trends so far for these potential disputes, it is expected as follows. Since 2015 or 2016, the US Supreme Court's intervention in CAFC's patent cases seems to be slightly easing, and it appears to have been further mitigated over the past three years, but it is difficult to reappear in the situation of entrusting CAFC with patent cases as before 2002. The second controversy is the controversy surrounding the rather extreme criticism that CAFC has turned into a court that is more hostile even than the Supreme Court, rather than close to the patentee as a court specializing in patents. This criticism was raised after the Supreme Court frequently interfered with the CAFC's judgment for more than a decade since the Festo case in 2002, and from around 2015, CAFC itself had taken more unfavorable views of the patentee to avoid any interference by the Supreme Court in advance. Rather, the Supreme Court issued rulings that modified such disadvantages in favor of patent holders. For now, it is very clear that CAFC has changed its steadfastly pro-patent stance on almost all patent law issues. However, it is reasonable to think that an argument such as ‘CAFC has completely changed to be hostile’ seems a hasty judgment.
<Keywords>
The relationship between the CAFC and the US Supreme Court, patent trials of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the specialized patent court and the supreme court, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on patent cases, the Supreme Court intervention in patent cases, a desirable relationship between the Korean Patent Court and the Korean Supreme Court
Jun-Seok Park, The U.S. Supreme Court Intervention in Patent Cases and the Changes in Status of CAFC, Journal of Industrial Property, Vol.73, pp.1-70.
<Abstract>
With enforcement of the centralized jurisdiction system in 2016, the appearance of the Korean Patent Court has become more similar to that of the CAFC, which has the identity of an appellate court specializing in patents. In the past, in the US, there was a controversy over whether the CAFC had the real identity of a 'patent special court', and now there is another controversy over what role the CAFC plays as a patent court, or what status it actually has. If the meaning of these controversies surrounding CAFC's identity and its role could be fully understood, it is possible to get a good precedent for establishing a desirable relationship between the Supreme Court and the Patent Court in Korea in the future, or use such understanding as an opportunity to teach the other side. For that purpose, this paper reviewed the controversies surrounding the role and actual status of CAFC as a specialized patent court one after another. There are two main controversial issues. First, there is controversy over whether CAFC will be able to regain its past status as the de facto highest court in patent cases in the future. After analyzing the related trends so far for these potential disputes, it is expected as follows. Since 2015 or 2016, the US Supreme Court's intervention in CAFC's patent cases seems to be slightly easing, and it appears to have been further mitigated over the past three years, but it is difficult to reappear in the situation of entrusting CAFC with patent cases as before 2002. The second controversy is the controversy surrounding the rather extreme criticism that CAFC has turned into a court that is more hostile even than the Supreme Court, rather than close to the patentee as a court specializing in patents. This criticism was raised after the Supreme Court frequently interfered with the CAFC's judgment for more than a decade since the Festo case in 2002, and from around 2015, CAFC itself had taken more unfavorable views of the patentee to avoid any interference by the Supreme Court in advance. Rather, the Supreme Court issued rulings that modified such disadvantages in favor of patent holders. For now, it is very clear that CAFC has changed its steadfastly pro-patent stance on almost all patent law issues. However, it is reasonable to think that an argument such as ‘CAFC has completely changed to be hostile’ seems a hasty judgment.
<Keywords>
The relationship between the CAFC and the US Supreme Court, patent trials of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the specialized patent court and the supreme court, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on patent cases, the Supreme Court intervention in patent cases, a desirable relationship between the Korean Patent Court and the Korean Supreme Court