소송유지명령(訴訟留止命令) 및 집행금지명령에 대한 연구

초록

On January 4, 2018, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (hereinafter “Chinese Court”) in China held a judgment in the Huawei v. Samsung standard essential patent (SEP) case. In this cease, the Chinese Court ruled in favor of Huawei, holding that Huawei had fulfilled its obligations under the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) provisions whereas Samsung did not. Hence, the Chinese Court issued an injunction against Samsung, banning any future infringement of Huawei’s SEPs from the distribution of Samsung’s Android devices. In response to the Chinese Court’s decision, Samsung moved for issuance of anti-enforcement injunction before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, prohibiting Huawei from enforcing a couple of Chinese patent injunctions for the time being. Judge Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order that enjoins Huawei from enforcing an injunction on Chinese SEPs rendered by the Chinese Court. At the end, the world’s two largest makers of Android smartphones filed a joint motion to a U.S. appeals court on February 26, 2019 to halt court proceedings over their SEPs disputes because they have entered into a settlement agreement on February 25, 2019. This case shows the effectiveness of anti-enforcement injunction somehow foreign to legal community in civil law countries. Anti-enforcement injunction may be defined as a type of anti-suit injunction. In this regard, this Article aims in illustrating anti-enforcement injunction and anti-suit injunction. Courts in Western European countries are reluctant to issue anti-enforcement injunctions whereas courts in common law counties are more inclined to issue anti-enforcement injunctions. In this context, this Article explores how Korea, one of civil law countries, deals with anti-enforcement injunction. Also, this Article will delve into how Korea needs to touch upon anti-suit injunctions. Furthermore, this Article discusses ant-anti-suit injunction because a court of country A can issue anti-anti-suit injunction following issuance of anti-suit injunction made by a court of country B. In addition, anti-arbitration injunction and pro-arbitration injunction will de examined in that they needs to be scrutinized in cases where litigation is processed parallel with arbitration between same parties in terms of same claims.

키워드