수입으로 인한 미국 특허권 침해에 대해 미국무역위원회("ITC")가 취할 수 있는 구제수단(remedies)으로서의 배제명령(exclusion orders)은 그 관할권의 대물적(in rem) 성격때문에 국제통상에 장애가 될 수 있는 소지가 많다. 이러한 이유에서 1947년 GATT에서 현재의 WTO체제까지 배제명령 및 그 근거법률인 미국관세법 337조의 GATT/WTO에 대한 3번의 사법심사의 시도가 있었다. 특히 ITC에 의해 미국 특허권 침해가 결정되어 일반배제명령(General Exclusion Orders)을 받은 경우는 조사절차의 당사자가 아닌 제3자의 생산품도 수입될 수 없어 국제통상에 미치는 영향이 매우 크다고 평가된다. 본고는 이러한 배제명령, 특히 일반배제명령의 WTO적합성을 다루었다. 결론적으로 미국의 우루과이 라운드이행법(URAA)에 의해 개정된 337조의 절차와 일반 배제명령은 GATT상의 내국민대우와 일반예외 조항의 필요성 요건을 충족시키지 못할 가능성이 많고 TRIPS와 관련해서도 특히 지재권 보호와 국제통상의 원활화라는 형량의무를 규정하고 있는 前文과 41조 위반 가능성이 높고 어떤 상황하에서는 51조 위반 가능성도 제기될 수 있다.

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ( “Section 337”) is a unique provision to protect the United States (“US”) domestic industries from unfair competition in the importation into the US of goods made by foreign companies, including goods that infringe U.S. patents. The Section 337 is empowering the US International Trade Commission ( “ITC”) to investigate the Section 337- based complaints. Although the ITC may exclude imports based on“ unfair acts,”“unfair methods of competition,”or “acts of intellectual property infringement”committed in connection with importation, almost all Section 337 investigations have been based on allegations of patent infringement. The most persuasive reason why is the Section 337 most often used to protect U.S. patent holders lies in its unique remedies available under Section 337, Exclusion Orders. Because these remedies are in rem, they are directed to the goods themselves. Thus, the orders are ideally suited to protect U.S. patents by enforcing intellectual property rights at the border. In this context, Section 337 has increasingly been a source of contention between the US and its trading partners for the last twenty years. As recently as in 2000, the European Community (“EC”) was actively pursuing a challenge to the Section 337 trade remedy through the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) dispute settlement system. This EC’s request for consultations claimed that Section 337 violated not only the general WTO principle of national treatment with respect to imported goods, but also various other obligations provided for by the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ( “TRIPS”). However, the WTO-mandated consultations between the US and its trading partners did not lead to a mutually acceptable solution, and panel procedures have not been sought yet. This paper has examined, centering on the exclusion orders, over the ITC proceedings with some important legal issues of the past two GATT panel reports. As background, it first outlined the salient features of Section 337 and the exclusion orders, as well as the twenty-year history of the dispute, focusing on the 1988 GATT panel decision holding Section 337 to be in violation of GATT obligations. It has then analyzed the legality of Section 337 under the WTO. This analysis has taken into account the 1994 US statutory changes designed to address the 1988 GATT panel decision as well as other aspects of Section 337. Finally, it has examined the exclusion orders from the perspective of the GATT 1994, the TRIPS, and evolving WTO practices.

I. 지적재산권의 국제적 실시와 규범 충돌
II. 337조 위반시의 구제수단 (Remedies)
III. 배제명령의 WTO 합치성에 대한 고찰
IV. 결 론

• 김대원(서울 시립대학교 조교수) | Dae-Won Kim