Korea has been used 'The guideline of evaluation for abuse of the intellectual property' which was established August, 30th 2000 to prevent overuse of the rights. Specially, for the disapproval of the intellectual property license, the guide line of the seventeenth Clause of Article III indicated that ① the disapproval on the unacceptance of the unfair trade matter and ② the disapproval on the essential industrial property were violations of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(hereinafter Fair Trade Act). In case of ①, the regulation was set up to remove disadvantage from the action of refusal for the compulsion of the unfair trade. It is very appropriate for the purpose of the fair trade Act to insure fair trade discipline and competition regularity. In case of ②, it is a clear indication that what is called 'theory of essential Facility Theory' could be applied to the disapproval of the intellectual property license.
On the other hand, the guide line is not fully sufficient to have reasonable control for the new and various instances of the fair trade violation, specifically, for the disapproval of the individual trade. Therefore, there is a necessity to establish reasonable regulations for the control by modelling the EU and Japanese regulations. Followings were summaries of important contents which need to be included in the new guide line substituting the conclusion.
First, there is a necessity to establish a new regulation and/or complement the old regulation of the disapproval of a individual trade for the intellectual property license. Hitherto, the opinion that the disapproval of a individual trade for the intellectual property license is an action within the rights of an individual who possess the intellectual property license has been common. But, as the case of EU and Japanese, the disapproval of a individual trade need be a subject of application of the Fair Trade Act in case of a negative influence to the market.
Second, in case of the disapproval of a individual trade for the intellectual property license which is acquired from other person, the possibility of violation of the Fair Trade Act increase significantly. In case of the disapproval of the fair trade which effects previous market competition system, it must be considered as a violation of the Fair Trade Act if there was no acceptable reason. Because It would be viewed as beyond limits of the grantee's exclusive rights which comes from the acquisition of the intellectual property license. Naturally, in case of an imposition of usage fee within the reasonable range and an action within the limitation of the rights of the intellectual property license, it is not a violation of the Fair Trade Act.
Third, there is necessity to classify whether it is a violation of the law or not among the actions that a person who possesses the intellectual property license disapprove a trade. At least, there is a necessity to elucidate that the action is not a violation of the Fair Trade Act through setting up a Safe Harbor clause as in the New EU Regulation - TTBER. This indicates the necessity that the person who possesses the intellectual property license deserves to have a consideration to prevent withering to exercise their rights. The necessity of the policy application of the Fair Trade Act enlarges when the prevention is more important than following solution.
Forth, in case of the Grant Back clause and the No Dispute clause, by individual evaluation, in other word, the decision of violation the Fair Trade Act need to be precise by comparing the factors of competition limits and competition promotions. In addition, there is a necessity to specify that there is no violation of the law in a regular case.
Fifth, In a cross license contract, between the competitors, the Grant Back clause would have a negative influence to the technological reform by imposing the duty of public ownership for the improved technology. Therefore, detailed regulations need to establish for the cross license.