특허법은 특허독립의 원칙에 따라 전통적으로 속지주의원칙이 지배하는 영역이다. 그러나 지식이나 정보는 한번 생산되면 세계 각국에서 동시에 사용될 수 있는 특성을 가지고, 시장경제의 급격한 세계화에 따라 더 이상 속지주의원칙의 고수만으로는 해결할 수 없는 문제들이 많이 나타나게 되었다. 본 논문에서는 외국에서 출원된 직무발명에 대한 권리귀속 등에 관해 사용자와 종업원 사이에 분쟁이 발생하는 경우, 우리나라 법원이 국제재판관할권을 가지는지, 그리고 직무발명에 관한 섭외적 법률관계에 적용될 준거법은 무엇인지를 대법원 2015.1.15. 선고 2012다4763 판결(이하, ‘대상판결’)을 중심으로 검토해 보았다. 그 결과 직무발명의 권리관계에 대해서도 당사자 자치의 원칙에 따라 국제사법 제25조가 먼저 고려되는 것이 바람직하다는 결론에 도달하였다. 직무발명제도는 특허법과 민법, 노동법이 교차하는 영역에 존재하는 것으로, 직무발명에 관한 사항은 특허권의 효력 등 지식재산권의 보호에 관한 것이 아니어서 국제사법 제24조를 적용해야 하는 것은 아니듯이, 직무발명이 언제나 근로계약을 전제로 하는 것도 아니어서 반드시 국제사법 제28조가 적용되어야 하는 영역도 아니기 때문이다. 다만 대상판결에서 “직무발명에 의하여 발생되는 권리의무는 비록 섭외적 법률관계에 관한 것이라도 성질상 등록이 필요한 특허권의 성립이나 유ㆍ무효 또는 취소 등에 관한 것이 아니어서, 속지주의의 원칙이나 이에 기초하여 지식재산권의 보호에 관하여 규정하고 있는 국제사법 제24조의 적용대상이라 할 수 없고, ... 발생의 기초가 된 근로계약에 관한 준거법으로서 국제사법 제28조 제1항, 제2항 등에 따라 정하여지는 법률이라고 봄이 타당하다.”고 판단한 이유는 대상판결의 원고와 피고 사이에는 근로계약이 존재하고, 우리나라 국제사법은 CLIP 원칙과 달리 직무발명의 준거법에 관한 명문의 규정이 없기 때문으로 판단된다. 향후 입법적 차원에서의 연구와 개선방안을 기대한다.
Patent law is an area traditionally dominated by territorial principle. However, according to the globalization of the market economy, a lot of problem has been appeared which can not be solved based on territorial principle alone. This article focused on the basic research as to jurisdiction and governing law as to foreign-related employee inventions through case study of the Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4763 decided on January 15, 2015. As a result, I concluded that, in accordance with the principle of party autonomy, even in determining jurisdiction and governing law as to foreign-related employee inventions, it is preferable to consider Article 25 of act on private international law in advance. Employee inventions system is present in the area to the intersection of patent law, civil law and labor law. Employee inventions system shall not be governed by Article 24 of act on private international law which stipulates the protection of intellectual property rights, because it is not related with the effectiveness of intellectual property right itself. As such, it is not always governed by Article 28 of Act on private international law which stipulates as to employment contract, because not every employee inventions is originated from employment contract. I think, the reason the Korean Supreme Court decided governing law of foreign-related employee inventions case as Article 28 of act on private international law is that in that case there is an employment contract between the plaintiff and defendant. In addition, unlike CLIP principles prepared by the European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, in Korean act on private international law, there is no provision stipulate expressly as to foreign-related employee inventions. It is expected the study and improvement of the legislative level.
Patent law is an area traditionally dominated by territorial principle. However, according to the globalization of the market economy, a lot of problem has been appeared which can not be solved based on territorial principle alone. This article focused on the basic research as to jurisdiction and governing law as to foreign-related employee inventions through case study of the Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4763 decided on January 15, 2015. As a result, I concluded that, in accordance with the principle of party autonomy, even in determining jurisdiction and governing law as to foreign-related employee inventions, it is preferable to consider Article 25 of act on private international law in advance. Employee inventions system is present in the area to the intersection of patent law, civil law and labor law. Employee inventions system shall not be governed by Article 24 of act on private international law which stipulates the protection of intellectual property rights, because it is not related with the effectiveness of intellectual property right itself. As such, it is not always governed by Article 28 of Act on private international law which stipulates as to employment contract, because not every employee inventions is originated from employment contract. I think, the reason the Korean Supreme Court decided governing law of foreign-related employee inventions case as Article 28 of act on private international law is that in that case there is an employment contract between the plaintiff and defendant. In addition, unlike CLIP principles prepared by the European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, in Korean act on private international law, there is no provision stipulate expressly as to foreign-related employee inventions. It is expected the study and improvement of the legislative level.
