특허를 논함에 있어서 가장 중요한 것은 청구 항이라고 이야기할 수 있다. 명세서를 아무리 잘 작성하였다고 할지라도 청구항의 내용이 잘못 작 성되어 있으면 발명의 권리범위를 제대로 보장 받 기 힘들다. 따라서 청구항을 분명하고 명확하게 작성하는 것은 세밀한 작업과 노력이 필요한 사항 이다. 하지만 반대로 이를 악용하는 사례가 있어 서 문제가 되고 있다. 특히 특허 괴물들은 이런 모 호하고 불분명한 청구항이 있는 특허들을 의도적 으로 이용하여 특허 소송에 악용하고 있다. 특허 소송은 타 소송과 달리 오랜 시간 동안 특허 기술 을 분석하고 청구항의 내용을 이해하여야 하기 때 문에 명확하지 않은 청구항들은 더욱더 청구항 분 석에 어려움을 겪게 되어 있다. 장시간의 특허 소 송은 피 소송 당사자인 기업들에게는 과도한 부담 으로 다가오기 때문에 조기에 합의를 볼 수밖에 없다. 따라서 이런 폐해를 막고자 특허 청구항을 원래 특허법의 취지에 맞게 명확하고 분명하게 작 성할 것을 권고하고 있다. 하지만 청구항은 명세 서의 범위보다 좀 더 넓게 작성할 수 있기 때문에 어디까지 명확하고 분명하게 작성되어야 할 것인 지는 그 경계가 모호하다고 볼 수 있다. 특히 미국 에서 문제가 되는 것은 지방법원과 항소법원에서 청구항의 불명확성에 대해서 다른 잣대로 법을 적 용하여 판결이 뒤집어지는 경우가 빈번히 발생하 고 있다는 것이다. 또한 소송 당사자에게도 결과 를 예측할 수 없게 만들어서 불편함이 상당하였 다. 이에 대해 미국의 최근 판례인 Nautilus 판결 에서 대법원은 청구항을 어떻게 작성해야 할 것 인가에 대한 구체적인 가이드라인을 제시하고자 노력하였다. 향후 대법원의 판례가 하급심의 판 결에 어떻게 적용될지 살펴볼 수 있는 계기가 되 었으면 한다. 이 논문은 청구항의 불명확실성이 어떻게 소송권자에 이용되고 있는지 살펴보고 Nautilus 판결을 구체적으로 분석할 예정이다. 그리고 후반부에는 미국, 유럽, 한국의 특허청에 서 특허 불명확성에 대해서 어떤 가이드라인을 제시하는지 살펴보고 더 나아가서 한국에서는 청 구항의 불명확성에 대해서 어떤 법률 조항을 가 지고 구체적으로 판결을 내리고 있는지 해당 판 례와 함께 정리해 보았다.

When we talk about a patent, the importance of the Claim in the patent can’t be overemphasized. In fact, Intellectual property laws secure that they can exclude infringers who practice claimed invention without a patentee’s consent. However, if we well draft a specification along with embodiments of a patent but the Claims in the patent are poorly drafted, the patent law can’t guarantee a proper right of an invention against infringers. So, we need clearly and definitely to draft a Claim to secure our rights according to patent law USC §112 2nd paragraph. It requires enormous efforts and details to make a good Claim, which has the clear extent of a right. It helps public recognize the scope of a right. So, people can be protected from the unwilled infringing activities.
However, there are increasing numbers of NPE or patent trolls who are using IP rights. They purposely draft unclear and indefinite Claims. Otherwise, they purchase the IP rights, which Claim is very broad so it is often ambiguous and vague. They like the Claims because it brings more profits than clear and detailed Claims.
The main reasons are mostly caused by prolong US legal system and patent law. Once an application is granted, it is difficult to challenge the invalidity of the application. The examiners in USPTO handle numerous applications and there are so many tactics to get it granted. There are also many loopholes to obtain a patent. Inventors may often obtain IP rights with poorly drafted Claim. According USC §282, patent Claim can be presumed as validity. To make it worse, patent lawsuits are extremely elongated and very expensive. Parties in litigations often fight with specific technical terms in Claim, which are very complicated and convoluted. The litigations are continuously prolonged to reconcile the differences of interpretations. The broad Claim tends to take more exhausting time to interpret Claims. Patent trolls or NPEs use such blind spots. They often threaten potential infringers with poorly drafted Claim. It is extremely difficult to comprehend the extent of Claim. It is impossible for Potential infringers to make a clear decision whether their products infringe Claim or not. Therefore, they have no choice but having a settlement with patentee or go to an expensive and prolong lawsuit to understand Claim. Patent lawsuit always has big risk into potential infringers which can cause huge compensations and injunctions. Lawsuit is unpredictable, especially when it is relating intellectual property rights.
NPE and patent trolls often induces potential infringers to have a settlement at the early stage and they often achieve huge profits. I presented this as statistics, how many cases were intrigued by NPE or Patent trolls and the average settlement costs. Poorly drafted Claims cause some negative influences to overall industries. IP system doesn’t properly function well. We protect IP rights because we believe the disclosed information enhance our industry and inspire creative ideas. However, vague and ambiguous Clam doesn’t function properly in that way. Rather, poorly drafted Claims are mass-produced to seek huge rewards by NPE or patent trolls.
These social malaises were brought into public discussions. In many past lawsuits cases, defendants constantly cited the adverse effects of poorly drafted Claims. The accused party in patent lawsuit often counter argue against patent infringement based on the USC §112 invalidity. USC § 112 2nd paragraph requires us particularly and distinctly to draft Claim. If Claim is not qualified with these requirements, we can challenge the Claim’s validity. However, as I mentioned in this paper, it is very difficult to achieve the goal.
Recently, the new Supreme case was decided. The nautilus vs. biosig case was decided in Supreme Court. Previously, CAFC ruled on USC §112 issues based on insolubly ambiguous test. It means that Claim term can be indefinite only when it is still not comprehended after trying utmost efforts to understand Claim meanings by all experts. In other words, when we interpret Claim terms, the terms can once be understandable by any way. It is not indefinite. It was extremely tough for the accused party to challenge an invalidity of Patent. However, the recent Supreme Court suggested new guide line “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” It definitely lowers the burden of challenging validity. Insolubly ambiguous was previously an extremely high requirement.
However, we still have problems understanding the new guideline of Supreme Court. The most debated words are “with reasonable certainty.” How can we extend the reasonable certainty to deal with indefinite terms? Although there were not so many litigation cases, there were some noticeable district cases to try to adopt the new guideline and they came up with some conclusions. Adjective words and emotional words in Claim, which can’t be measured with some numbers, will have high risks to become invalidity in light of the new guideline. Those words should be subjective and have materiality.
I would like to analysis the process of development in nautilus case until to reach a Supreme Court’s new conclusion. I tried to compare the indefiniteness standard with major countries. Major countries such as Korean and European Patent office’s view of Claim are addressed and compared each other. Each country has in common that Claim’s clearness and definiteness take the most priority state for drafting. I would like to monitor succeeding cases. Nautilus case was reversed and CAFC is in investigating the case again with the new test. I expect its’ decision will give more clear view of the new guideline and hope the new guideline to discourage the NPE or Patent trolls to drop the indefinite Clam lawsuits. I also hope that genuine functions of IP can be recovered by the judgment.

요약
 I. 서론
 II. 불명확한 청구항
  1. 35 U.S.C. § 112 2nd의 분석
  2. 법원에서의 불명확사유로 무효성 판단 적용
  3. 특허 괴물(patent troll)의 악용
 III. 불명확 청구항 판례 분석
  1. Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Inst. 판례 분석
  2. 판례에서 나타나는 문제점 및 해결 방법 모색
  3. 대법원 판결 및 불명확성을 판단하는 기준
  4. 대법원 판결 이후 새로운 기준 적용(Nautilus v. Biosig Inst. (II))
  5. 대법원 판결 이후의 판례들
  6. 미국/유럽 특허청에서의 명확성 판단 기준비교
 IV. 한국에서의 청구항 명확성 분석
  1. 한국/미국 특허청에서의 명확성 판단 기준비교
  2. 판례를 통한 분석
 V. 결론
 [참고문헌]

• 한상영(School of Law, The Graduate School, Seoul National University,) | HAN SANG YOUNG