The mobilization of patent attorneys by the Patent Attorney Seo-young

Patent Attorney Yoon-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. As to the assertion that there exists a ground for retrial following the confirmation of a trial decision for correction (ground of appeal No. 3), even if a trial decision to correct the specification or drawings (hereinafter referred to as “specifications, etc.”) of a patented invention becomes final and conclusive after the closure of arguments at the trial court as to a trial for revocation of a trial for invalidation of a patent by filing a petition for a trial for a trial for correction (the grounds of appeal No. 3), the lower court’s judgment that determined as the specification, etc. prior to the correction does not constitute a ground for retrial as prescribed in Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 20

Therefore, even if a corrective trial ruling becomes final and conclusive after the closing of argument in the lower court, it cannot be asserted as the grounds of appeal, and the final appeal shall determine the inventive step as the subject of the corrective statement before the

In this case, as to claims 1 (patent number omitted; hereinafter referred to as "claim 1 invention of this case") of the patented invention of this case (patent number omitted) (patent number omitted) under the name of the Safety Protection Unit and the Safety Protection Unit manufactured by the manufacturing method thereof, the correction trial was requested on September 5, 2017, which was after the closing of argument in the court below and the decision was finalized on March 22, 2018, and the correction trial was rendered and the decision became final and conclusive on March 22, 2018, but the non-obviousness of the inventive step as to the invention of this case should be determined prior to the confirmation of the corrective trial decision. The allegation in the grounds of appeal on this part is not acceptable.

2. As to the assertion that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 1 invention is not denied (ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2)

The lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is denied. The differences existing between the instant Claim No. 1 invention and the response structure of the prior invention No. 3 may be easily overcome by combining the prior invention No. 3 with widely known and commonly known art by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”), and subsequent effects may also be sufficiently predicted. Thus, it cannot be said that the ordinary technician can easily make the instant Claim No. 1 invention with prior invention 3 and widely known art.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the determination of inventive step or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed (the judgment of the court below that revoked the trial decision by the Intellectual Property Tribunal is affirmed as it is, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal will proceed with the trial for the claim after the correction of the trial decision becomes final and conclusive). The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-in

Justices Min Il-young in charge

Justices Lee Jae-hwan