9 A Study on Joint Infringement of Network-related Patent
̽ Focused on the Comparisons of the Cases and Theory in
Korea, Japan and United States (*)
Invited Researcher: JEON, SeongTae (**)
Patent infringement is established only if a single entity is subjected to any component of the claim.
However since the patent infringement by multiple entities is caused by the carrying out of some elements of theclaims by multiple entities, there arises a problem which were the directly infringed cannot be specified.
Therefore patent infringement by multiple entities has the limitation that indirect infringement or general tort
liability on existing patent law is hard to regulate. Also, recently patent infringement cases are caused bymultiple entities especially in Japan and the US. Neglecting patent infringement through divided
implementation by multiple entities could weaken patent protection and reduce the meaning of the Patent Law.
In other words, a patentee will obtain the unenforceable and useless right though acquired a patent. Therefore,
in order to investigate the recognition methodology for patent infringement by multiple entities, the recent cases
and theory in Japan and the US were compared and weighed in this report. Through this, analytics andmethodology which can recognize the infringement by multiple entities were found. Especially it was drawn thatindirect copyright infringement related jurisprudence (control/management and benefit) is appropriate to be
applied in patent law.

Ϩ Raising an issue
The development of industrial technology,
with the IT technology at the forefront, and thechanges in business models are giving rise to newissues in protection of patents. The scope of
patent protection arises in accordance with whatis written in the patent claim, and patent
infringement arises in the event that all of theinvention listed in the patent claim is
implemented without the consent of the patent
holder. This is in accordance with the “allelements rule” which says that there is
infringement only if all elements making up apatent claim are implemented, which is aprinciple of the patent system. In the case of
method invention such as a system invention
using networks, there are cases where thedefendant implements only a portion of theessential elements of the patented invention andarranges for a third person to implement theremainder.
In the event where multiple parties are
involved in the implementation of an invention, aquestion arises as to whether one who has
implemented only a portion of the patent claim
could be held liable for patent infringement.

However, due to the technological characteristics
of patent invention, it does not constitute patent
infringement when multiple parties implemented
the said patent invention. As such, there aredemands to revise the interpretation of theconcept of implementation itself or of the parties
involved in the act of implementation. Therefore,
this paper seeks to examine, based on the analysis
of case precedents in the US and Japan, themethodology for patent infringement liability
wheremultipleparties
implements
one
network-type patented invention separately,
thereby causing, as a consequence, patent
infringement.

ϩ Japanese case precedents
As to patent infringement by a third party
through separate implementation by multiple
parties which cannot be resolved through current
patent laws, the Japanese courts have responded
through various interpretations. For example, as
to method invention in the electrodepositedimage case, 1 the court affirmed direct
infringement by reasoning that there is acontrol/management relationship between thecontractor and subcontractor, by using the tool(*) This is a summary of the report published under the Industrial Property Research Promotion Project FY2014
entrusted by the Japan Patent Office.
(**) Associate Research Fellow, Korea Institute of Intellectual Property, at our institute over a period of approximately 7months from July 7, 2014 through February 5, 2015, as an Invited Researcher for the Fiscal Year 2014.
IIP Bulletin 2015 Vol.24● 58 ●

theory.
Among Japanese legal scholars regarding theelectrodeposited image case, the view that is
gaining support is the one which mentions therationale behind the expandable poly styrofoam
first and then asserting that, in order for a partial
implementation of the patented method toconstitute an indirect infringement, there must
not only be a simple result of having implemented
a part of the patented method. Just as in the caseof jointly determining distribution of duties, if
there is a strong coming together of intent for the
implementation of the whole of the patented
invention jointly among those who have
implemented the whole, or if there is arelationship where one controls another’s conduct,such as in the case of subcontracting, then all of
those who are engaged in the implementation
should be viewed2 as one entity.
Moreover, in the eye glasses frame case, 3
which is a relatively recent case, business’s
liability for partially implementing the essential
elements of an invention using the network wasaffirmed. Among the legal scholars who agreewith this, there are those who maintain that inrecognizing whether there was an act of
implementation in relation to the implementationof the invention concerning the system related tothe system using the network (if the structure
proposed in this decision is adopted, then thedecision will be based on the application of thecriteria called ‘control/management.’), therelevant ‘thing’ (system) is used as a means ofaccomplishing the purpose of the invention by the
defendant, and depending on whether there wasthe act of ‘use’ it is justified4 to examine in detailthe relationship between the defendant’s conduct
and the relevant ‘thing’ (system).
Also, in the Internet number case and thecar-mounted navigation case, which are relatively
recent cases, the court assessed liability of patent
infringement by multiple parties through theinterpretation of claims. As can be seen, whereas
there is an increase in the number of
network-type patent infringement by multiple
parties in Japan, discussion as to the basis forliability is ongoing centered around caseprecedents and legal scholars. However, it could
be said that a clear conclusion has not beenreached. But, it could be said that the Japanesecourts have been making substantially proactive
decisions with respect to the patent infringement
liability by multiple parties. In conclusion, it could
be said that in relation to the patent infringementof the network-type, using the conduct of others,

the Japanese courts have been expanding thescope of formation of patent infringement inresponse to the diverse changes in the businessmodel.

Ϫ Case precedents in the US
In the US, patent infringement following theseparate implementation by multiple entities isbeing discussed around joint infringement. Joint
infringement could be said to be a type of direct
infringement, but it is different from the direct
infringement set forth in the US Patent Law
Section 271 (a).5 This is because this provision isabout liability that is accepted when all theelements of the patent invention are implemented
by a single party. Also, due to the limitations of
not being able to define patent infringement by
multiple entities, the US courts have been
applying the concept of joint infringement under
the common law. However, the US CAFC in the
Akamai decision 6 suggested a stricter standard
than the BMC case, saying there needs to be an“agency relationship or contractual obligation.” Inparticular, in the re-examination of the Akamai
case: (1) the appropriate conditions required formethod patent’s joint infringement; (2) in theevent of determination of method patent’s joint
infringement, the amount of liability the method
patent’s implementer bear became issues. In
other words, whether the strict standards
proposed in the December 2010 decision(“agency relationship or contractual obligation”)
are appropriate conditions to determine joint
infringement was reconsidered.
In fact, in cases where the method patent’s
joint infringement became an issue, there arereasons for the difference in the CAFC’s opinion.
For instance, in the Golden Hour Data Systems
decision,7 there was Judge Newman’s dissenting
opinion that it is not desirable to apply theprovision that, considering that while there is a“strategic cooperation relationship” between themethod patent implementer A and B even thoughthe “mastermind” does not exist, there was nodirection or control by the implementer A of theother implementer B. Also, even in the Mckesson
Technologies Inc. v. Epic Systems Corporation
case8 which was decided by CAFC immediately
before re-examination of the Akamai case, Judge
Newman is questioning having it as an absolutecondition that the use of the patented technology
be done by a single entity. Moreover, in thisdissenting opinion, it was suggested that in orderto determine joint infringement liability, instead● 59 ●IIP Bulletin 2015 Vol.24

of having as an absolute condition for the
acknowledgment of patent infringement thedirection and control of another implementer by
the mastermind implementer, it is desirable tounderstand the matters related to participationand cooperation by multiple implementers as in
the case of determining joint tort under common
law.
The Akamai full-member court decision 9
criticized the existing precedents and theorized
the jurisprudence applicable for the multiple
entity’s patent infringement liability with Patent
Law Section 271(b)’s induced infringement
liability. In particular, the majority in the Akamai
full-member court held that all stages claimed in apatent must be implemented in order to findinduced infringement liability. It held, however,that not all stages have to be proved to be
implemented by a single entity. In particular, theAkamai full-member court majority excluded
treating multiple parties’ patent infringement
liability with Patent Law Section 271(a)’s direct
infringement, and opined that such cases could be
resolved by applying the principles of induced
infringement liability. As a basis for this, statingthat the one who knowingly induced the otherparties to conduct the implementation of each of
the stages in the method patent has the same
effect as the one who induced the same
infringement by a single entity, it stated that
there is no reason to treat the two inducers
differently, in terms of statutes or as a policy. As
to this, Judge Linn, who offered a dissenting
opinion asserted that induced infringement
requires the existence of direct infringement, andthat there is a need to protect the one who has
not implemented all elements of a claim. On theother hand, Judge Newman, who had to make his
decision based on the traditional tort, criticized
the full-member court’s decision as new andunrestricted, and argued that it created a theory
without limitation for patent infringement.
In the end, while the Federal Supreme Court
affirmed the jurisprudence for the existing
inducement liability as to the Akamai full-member
court’s decision, it made its decision based on theFederal Appeals Court’s Muniauction case which
held that the same party may be held liable ifstages in a method patent were actually all
implemented by the defendant or if other parties
were directed or controlled to implement it. 10
Also, the Federal Supreme Court held that since
implementation of all stages of the relevant
patent by the respondent does not belong to any
one party, the appellant is not liable for ant

IIP Bulletin 2015 Vol.24

method patent infringement.
US courts have been suggesting various
jurisprudence as to the level of patent liability ofparties or tests. Such applied jurisprudence has
evolved and changed over time. For instance, it
could be said to have evolved from (1) joint
infringement based on joint torts or agency, (2)joint infringement based on cooperation or someconnection, (3) joint infringement based on recent
control or direction, to (4) divided infringement as
a form of induced infringement. However, in theend, the Federal Supreme Court, while denying
the inducement liability based on Section 271(b),noted that it is necessary to re-examine the
Akamai case at the Federal Appeals Court and theFederal Appeals Court granted the opportunity toreview the Patent Law Article 271(a) once again.
Currently, the Akamai case, which wasreversed and remanded to the Federal Appeals
Court is awaiting re-examination. It would be
worthwhile to see what decision the Federal
Appeals Court makes.

ϫ Approaches
forrecognizing
network-type patent infringementby multiple entities
1

Theoretical approach trends: centeredaround Korea, Japan and the US(1) Korea
It is insufficient to attribute liability or
network-type liability infringement in which
multiple parties are involved only based onindirect infringement provision under Patent Act.
Therefore, when patent infringement has
occurred by multiple entities and it is difficult tohold any one entity liable for the infringement, inorder to hold everyone accountable, the legal ideaof “joint direct infringement” is being discussed.
Some of the scholars in Korea have the view thatwhen joint actors conduct infringement conduct
as an organic unity by objectively dividing the
conduct under the subjective conspiracy of asingle infringement, (similar to principle
co-conspirator) all parties involved could be held
liable for injunction and tort liability.11(2) Japan
A majority of the Japanese scholars takes anaffirmative position with regard to legallyassessing the one who partially implemented theessential elements of patented invention to be theacting entity for the direct infringement of therelevant patent.12 From the position of the Patent
Act that the direct infringement of a patent does

● 60 ●

not negate the fact that it was committed jointly
by many parties, if it appears that the conduct ofmultiple parties was one implementation act froman objective standpoint because they are related
to each other, then it will be reviewed whether
the patent invention’s essential elements weresatisfied based on the joint implementation act. If
multiple entity infringement is affirmed throughthis, request for prohibition for all entities thathave engaged in the joint direct infringement
could be accepted. 13 However, it could be said
that the conditions under which the multiple
parties' joint direct infringement conduct will be
accepted could vary depending on the discourse.
As to this, there are such views as (i) subjective
joint intent is necessary for multiple infringers,14(ii) subjective joint relationship is sufficient and,subjective joint intent is not necessary,15 (iii) andrecently, that the patent infringement conduct
involved in by multiple entities should be divided
into direct infringement and control-typeinfringement and applied based on the various
conditions.16 (iv) there is also the view that the
karaoke jurisprudence regarding the copy rights
law should be applied to network-type patent
infringement by multiple entities.17 That is to say,anyone who is in the position of thecontrol/management over rights infringement orreaping benefit from it, it could be viewed as thesame entity as the party that actually commits theinfringement under the Patent Act or the
Copyright Act.
(3) USIn the discourse in the US, there is the view
regardingthemultipleparty’spatentinfringement liability issue, that by adopting
vicarious liability under the Copyright Law, if one
party implements the teaching instruction
whereby one party provides information
regarding the act of another party or provides
guidance, and reaps obvious and direct financial
benefit from such act, then such party could beheld legally liable for direct infringement. 18
On the other hand, the concept of “use”
regarding direct infringement under the Patent
Law Section 271(a) arose from invention of athing in the past, so some view that this could beapplied to method patents to resolve the issue ofmultiple party patent infringement. 19 In thisconnection, there is also the view that in the caseof method patents where multiple parties wereinvolved, the method of drafting a claim should beestablished.20

2

Composition of multiple party patent
infringement liability theory
The multiple party joint infringement isconduct where direct infringement exists but adirect infringer does not. This could be viewed as
an interpretation in accordance with the rules ofindirect infringement in Korea, Japan and the US.
By adopting the concept of divided infringement as
to the multiple party joint infringement, themajority of the US Akamai full-member court as aconsequence surpassed the case precedents
relating to US Patent Law Section 271(b) and thescope of interpretation established on the legal
rules in the form of applying induced infringement
liability. This was once denied in the Akamai
Federal Supreme Court decision. Also, among
Japanese scholars, some assert that, as to multiple
party patent infringement liability, it should beviewed as joint direct infringement while some saythat it should be treated as control/management
type infringement. However, multiple party patent
infringement liability should not be viewed as athird party infringement but as a joint direct
infringement, and its application should be definedusing the elements of “control/management” and“benefit.” It is thought that it could be resolved
through the US’s traditional tort theories and theapplication of karaoke jurisprudence under theJapanese Copyright Act to the Patent Act. The
following will examine the relevant jurisprudence
in the US, Japan and Korea.
(1) US’s traditional torts liability
The common law Tort Principles could be
divided into direct tort liability (joint torts) andsecondary
tort
liability.
Althoughjoint
tortfeasorship under the US law is difficult todefine, generally, if there were two or more
cowrongdoers, it views that all of them are liable
for the direct infringement. According to adissertation on torts law, “all of those whoplanned or intended the tort, who actively
participated or abetted or demand such action,
aided or supported the tort or approved or elected
torts for one’s own benefit are equally liable.”21
Here, the promise among the tortfeasors does nothave to be clear and a “tacit understanding”
would be sufficient. On the other hand, thesecondary tort liability is understood to be theliability of the one who cause damages to theplaintiff by providing the grounds for direct torts
by another person, while he himself does notdirectly commit such tort. There are two types ofsecondary torts liability under traditional US torts
law. One is vicarious liability and the other is● 61 ●IIP Bulletin 2015 Vol.24

contributory liability. 22First, it is understood that one could be held
vicariously liable even when a party had played norole in another person’s torts, i.e., not only when
there was no conduct of supporting or
encouraging conduct but also when all action toprevent the tort was done. Such vicarious liability
arises from the defendant’s ability to control ordirect the conduct of the direct tortfeasor. An
example is the principal-agent relationship. In theFree Standing Stuffer, Inc. v. Holly Development
Co., case, 23 the court held that infringement
could not be avoided by contracting with anotherparty to carry out the method patent. And justbecause an agent or an independent contractor
comes in between the principal and theinfringement, it does not indemnify the principalfrom such liability. Similarly, in the Metal Film Co.
v. Melton Corp., case,24 the court of first instanceheld that the defendant could not avoid liability by
the fact that the first stage in a method claim was
implemented by an external supplier. Using suchapproach based on such type of agent, the court
was able to hold the multiple parties liable forpatent infringement without devising a new legal
theory. It also maintained the patent law within
the scope of its traditional common law
principles.
Generally, the US tort law holds individuals
liable for consequences of intentional or negligent
acts as a part of the tortfeasor. This is because
vicarious liability arises from the relationshipbetween the defendant and direct tortfeasor, andthe vicarious liability arises from the concept thatcompensation is necessary for the injured party.
Such vicarious liability does not have the elementof intent or mens rea. That is to say, liability isassessed even in the absence of special intent for
the tortious conduct.25(2) Japan’s karaoke jurisprudence
Japan’s case precedents established the“karoke jurisprudence” through the case where
the liability of the operator of a karaokeestablishment which has a personal relationshipwith a customer became an issue.26 In order tounderstand the copyrights infringer, it used thetwo elements of “management/control” and“benefit” in determining infringement. These twostandards are being used in other cases as well.27
Especially, the most recent cases include those
who provide the things (aiding and abetting type)in the liable parties because the server which isin charge of the duplication or air transmission
processes, which are essential parts of the

IIP Bulletin 2015 Vol.24

indirect infringer’s service, is under management
and control of the indirect infringer.28
As can be seen here, lessons could belearned from how Japan evaluates the indirect
infringer as direct infringer and defines it. Thisshows the need to view the copyrights indirect
infringer’s liability as an individual liability as wellas the possibility of solving the indirect
infringement issue within the Copyright Act.
(3) Korea’s
control/management
andcomprehensive intent
In Korea, in order to hold liable those who
cause copyrights infringement by providing
Internet bulletin boards or space or providing filesharing programs like P2P to encourage
copyrights infringement of another person, caseprecedents
have
been
recognizing
interpretationally the jurisprudence of expanding
the copyrights infringing entity.29 It interpreted
the existing Copyright Act Article 123(1)’s“rights that need to be protected by measuresother than the Copyright Act” as including
duplication rights and equity rights and conduct
seen as infringement under Article 124 (indirect
infringement). However, by interpreting the law
to include in the interpretation of the text the actof suborning and abetting of copyrights
infringement and expanding the scope of theinfringer for copyrights infringement, it was able
to impose liability for infringement.
On the other hand, in addition to cases that
expand the scope of the infringement entity, there
have been cases which accepted the liability of
those who contributed to copyrights infringementby expanding the user entity of copyrights. That is,
it could be said to be a kind of principal-typeattributable liability. The Ental case30 and My TV
case31 falls into this category. In these two cases,
the courts expands the copyrights user entity
based on the “comprehensive intent of duplicating
conduct” and “management and control” which areimportant elements in expanding the user entity.
3

Sub-conclusion
The final stage of the method patent which is
implemented by multiple entities mostly have theform of the user (consumer) implementing them.
This is a phenomenon that is manifested
commonly in the US and Japanese cases. In
particular, in cases of a method patent which uses
a business method patent or method patent using
network, business takes place with the final user
as the target. This is similar to the issue thatarises in the copyrights indirect infringement● 62 ●

area. It is the question of who implements the
final stage in the end, and if it is the issue of
copyright indirect infringement, then if the finaluser becomes the infringer of duplication rights
for example, (excluding when it is private
duplication), then there is a difference in that
there are no direct infringers in the patent area.
However, it could not be said that the issue of thenature of liability under patent law and copyrights
law is the same, and in that perspective, such
legal theories that are centered aroundcontrol/management and benefit as a response in
the copyrights area should also be accepted in thepatent law area. It appears that the US’s adoptionof copyrights vicarious liability or traditional torts
law principles, Japan’s application of the karaoke
jurisprudence (both copyrights and patents), as
well as Korea’s control and management andcomprehensive
intent(considerationofawareness element) offer many hints as to thedefinition of multiple party patent infringement
liability.

Ϭ Conclusion
Neglecting patent infringement throughdivided implementation of network-type method
invention by multiple parties could weaken patent
protection and reduce the meaning of the Patent
Law. As could be seen in the US Federal Supreme
Court decision and Japan’s control/management
theories, we need to have an interpretation
theory in the direction of recognizing joint direct
infringement. On the other hand, from the policy
perspective, as in the case of business method
patent or network related patent, for method
patents which are comprised of multi-steps
involving multiple parties, a good approach would
be to establish guidelines or claim a drafting
method through the joint cooperation andresearch of IP5.

1

2

3

4

Judgment of the Tokyo District Court, September 20,
2001, Hanrei Jiho No. 1764, p. 112.
Hisanori Oguri, "Fukus Shutai no Kanyo" [Involvmentof multiple parties], Minoru Takeda et al., BijinesuHǀhǀ Tokkyo [Business method patent] (Seirin Shoin,2004), p. 408.
Judgment of the Tokyo District Court, December 14,
2007 (accessible on the Supreme Court website).
Shunji Matsuda, "Fukus Shutai ga Kanyo suru Monono Hatsumei ni tsuite Tokkyoken no Shingai wo Ktei
shita Jirei---Tokyo Chi Han Heisei 19.12.14 (Megane
Furmu Jiken) wo Daizai ni shite" [Case in which thecourt found infringement of a patent right for an
inventionofaproduct
involving
multipleparties---Judgment of the Tokyo District Court,
December 14, 2007 (eyeglasses frame case)], Patent Vol.
62, No. 8 (Japan Patent Attorneys Association, 2009), p.
58.
5
Reza Dokhanchy, “Cooperative Infringement: I get by(Infringement Laws) with a Little Help From My
Friends”, 26 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 135, 2011, p. 144.
6629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
7
614 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
8
98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
9
Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
and McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems
Corp., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (en banc).
10134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014).
11
Korea’s case precedent related to this is where A, who
had been doing business with the grant of distribution
rights of goods affixed with trademark from thetrademark holder, conspired with B to manufacture
products bearing a trademark which is similar to thetrademark holder’s mark for distribution in Korea
through a separate route in Korea by A and B. A & B’s
joint infringement and joint tort was recognized in thiscase. (Cho Young Sun, page 216).
12
Ryuta Hirashima, "Fukus Shutai ga Kaizai suru
Tokkyoken Shingai Hri wo Meguru Aratana Hksei ni
tsuite---Oboegaki teki Kent" [A new direction
concerning the legal theory of infringement of a patentright involving multiple parties---Review as amemorandum] Chitekizaisanken: Hǀri to Teigen: Makino
Toshiaki Sensei Sanju Kinen Ronbunshǌ [Intellectual
property right: Legal theory and recommendation: A
collection of papers in memory of the 80th birthday ofProfessor Toshiaki Makino] (Seirin Shoin, 2013), p. 127.
13
This is being criticized in that it fails to clearly set
forth the legal basis for recognizing legal elements forjoint direct infringement. If the position that assertionand proof of the subjective elements is necessary aside
for such critiques, plaintiff’s assertion/burden of proof isquite significant. Therefore, the difficulty arises as tolegal liability in the cases premised on the involvementof the non-specific multiple entities such as the B2C
system that has only a specific entity as a defendant.
(Shunji Matsuda, p. 62).
14
Naoki Mizutani, "Bijinesu Hh Tokkyo no Kshi ni
tomonai Aratani Shjitekuru Mondai" [New issues
arising from the enforcement of business method
patents], Jurist No. 1189 (Yuhikaku, 2000), p. 40, Eiji
Tomioka, "Fukusno mono ga Kyd shite Tokkyoken
Shingai wo Okonatta Baai no Hritsu Kankei ni tsuite"[Legal relationships in the case of infringement of a patentright committed jointly by multiple parties], Toshiaki
Makino et al. ed., Chitekizaisanhǀ no Riron to Jitsumu (dai
1 kan) [Theory and practice of intellectual property law,vol. 1] (Shinnihon Hoki, 2007), p. 220.
15
Hideo Ozaki, "Konpyta Puroguramu to Tokkyo
Shingai no Shomondai" [Computer programs andvarious issues on patent infringement litigation],
Toshiaki Shimizu and Ryuichi Shitara, ed., Gendai
Saibanhǀ Taikei 26 Chitekizaisanken (Contemporarycase law 26, intellectual property right) (Shinnihon
Hoki, 2006), p. 230.
16
Makoto Hattori, "Shihai Kanri-gata no Tokkyo Shingai ni
tsuite" [Control/management-based patent infringement],
Katayama Eiji Sensei Kanreki Kinen Ronbunshǌ,● 63 ●IIP Bulletin 2015 Vol.24

Chitekizaisanhǀ no Atarashii Nagare [A collection of
papers in memory of the 60th birthday of Professor Eiji
Katayama, A new trend of intellectual property law]
(Seirin Shoin, 2010), pp. 453-472.
17
Makiko Takabe, "Kokusaika to Fukus Shutai ni yoru
Chitekizaisanken no Shingai" [Internationalization andinfringement of intellectual property rights by multiple
parties], Akiyoshi Minoru Sensei Kiju Kinen,
Chitekizaisanken Sono Keisei to Hogo [In memory of the77th birthday of Professor Minoru Akiyoshi;
Intellectual property rights---Creation and protection](Shinnihon Hoki, 2002), p. 161.
18
Alice Juwon Ahn, “Finding Vicarious Liablility in U.S.
Patent Law: The “Direct or Control” stand for Joint
Infringement, Berkeley Technology L.J, vol.24, 2009,
pp.173-175.
19
Dolly Wu, “The Use of use for Patented Systems in aSingle or Joint Infringement World,” 14 Colum. Sci. &Tech. L. Rev. 514, 2013, p.556.
20
Alton Hornsby III, “Divided Infringement for Software
Patent in View of Limelight Networks v. Akamai
Technologies,” 7 No. 2 Landslide 46, 2014, p.49.
21
W. PAGE KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND
KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 46, pp. 323-324(1984).
22
Mark Bartholomew & John Tehranian, “The Secret Lifeof Legal Doctrine: The Divergent Evolution ofSecondary Liability in Trademark and Copyright Law,”
21 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1363, 2006, pp. 1366-69
23
No. 72 C 1070, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11420 (N.D. Ill.
Dec. 24, 1976).
24
316 F. Supp. 96 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).
25
John Gardner, Complicity and Causality, 1 CRIM. L. &PHIL. 127, 130 n.2 (2007).
26
Judgment of the Supreme Court, March 15, 1988,
Minshu Vol. 42, No. 3, p. 199.
27
Judgment of the Tokyo District Court, August 4, 2006,
Hanrei Jiho No. 1945 [Maneki TV case]; Judgment of
the Tokyo District Court, May 25, 2007, Hanrei Jiho
No. 1979, p. 100 [MYUTA case], etc.
28
Refer to the MYUTA case.
29
Seoul High Court 2007. 10. 10. Ja2006Ra 1245 decision.
30
Seoul Central District Court 2008. 7. 10. Announced
2008GaHap25126 decided and its appeal Seoul High
Court 2009. 4. 30. Announced 2008Na86722 decided(Although, as the defendant asserts, the recording of aseparate program is being done upon choice of theusers and if the recording reservation application
details are encrypted, the defendant comprehensively
intended the copying act of the plaintiff’s program andcontrolled and managed the act of copying of theindividual programs” so the copying entity in this casewas the defendant.
31
Seoul Central District Court 2010. 9. 28.
Ja2009KaHap4625
injunctionforcopyrights
infringement (“Since the defendant has many PVR units
for the subscribers, that there is no need for thesubscribers to individually purchase, lease or install therecording device, that the space for installation andstorage of the PVR was made by the defendant, andsince its maintenance and management is also done by
the defendant, the role of the subscriber in the
program copying process is limited to only designating
the program to be copied.”).

IIP Bulletin 2015 Vol.24● 64 ●