beta
(영문) 특허법원 2012.02.17 2011허7249

등록무효(특)

Text

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 24, 201 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case No. 264 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) Name 1 of the instant patent invention: Date of application 2) of carbon electric contact, the date of registration / the registration / the registration number: July 1, 2008 / December 8, 2010 / The scope of claims and drawings (No. 10013543) of the instant patent invention: the Defendant is as shown in Appendix 1.

B. Invention 1) Added Invention 1 is related to the "EECRICLLGY COEKT" (Evidence 9) published in No. 10-83983 of the Domestic Registered Invention, registered on June 13, 2008, as indicated in No. 10-8393, and its main contents and drawings are as indicated in Attached Invention 2. 2) Added Invention 1, published on May 18, 2006, published in No. 2006/03081 of the U.S. Official Patent Gazette 2006, published in No. 2006.

3) Invention 3, registered as of March 7, 200, in relation to the “BULAR ESOE PEOE PEE PEOE PEE PEE PEOE PEOE PEOE ACT 20-182453, and the main contents and drawings thereof are as indicated in the Attached Invention 2.3. The main contents and drawings are as indicated in the Attached Invention 4. Around June 13, 2000, the U.S. Patent Gazette 605205 published in the Attached Invention 6075205 of the Patent Gazette of the United States, registered on June 13, 200, in order to provide “UUBLRR ESOE PEOEALALALAL PEPEOE PEPEOEALOPEOE PEPEOE REOEMMMALOE REOEALOEALOEALOE REOEALOEALALOEIEIEALAL.

C. On February 1, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial against the Defendant with the Intellectual Property Tribunal, asserting that “The patented invention of this case is publicly known to the preceding technology, or that it is readily possible for a person who has ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) to make an invention by the preceding technology, and thus, its newness or inventive step is denied.”