[특허무효][공1984.8.1.(733),1188]
(a) Where a claimant for invalidation trial has been granted a non-exclusive license on a condition of payment, whether the interest in seeking the invalidation trial has ceased;
(b) A summary of compliance with a separate exclusion period against the intervenor in the patent invalidation trial;
A. Even if a claimant for invalidation of a patent has been granted a non-exclusive license on this case by the Korean Intellectual Property Office, if he/she is required to perform his/her duties accompanied by a non-exclusive license on the grounds that the conditions for payment corresponding to three percent of the net sales of the product are attached to the granting disposition, he/she cannot be deemed to have ceased to have all the interests between the parties.
(b) insofar as a request for a trial on invalidation of a patent is made within the exclusion period, the exclusion period should not be separately imposed on the supplementary intervenor.
(a) Article 97 (b) of the Patent Act;
A. Supreme Court Decision 79Hu78 delivered on March 25, 1980, 79Hu74 delivered on May 13, 1980, and 79Hu75 delivered on July 22, 1980
Iron Chemical Co., Ltd.
Patent Attorney Jeon-han, Inc., a promotion precise chemical
닛뽕소오다 가부시기가이샤 대리인 변리사 이준구
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 99 dated April 29, 1982
The appeal is dismissed.
Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the first ground for appeal:
According to the original decision, even if a claimant was granted a non-exclusive license of the patent of this case from the Korean Intellectual Property Office on November 5, 1980, the court below held that the disposition of granting the patent of this case requires the performance incidental to the ordinary license by attaching the terms of payment corresponding to three percent of the net sales price for the product, so it cannot be deemed that all interests between the parties are extinguished by the above granting of the license, and that this is justified and that the decision of 80Hu77 decided July 28, 1981 cited by the theory of lawsuit is different from the case of this case.
2. On the second ground for appeal:
In full view of the contents of the written application for intervention by the intervenor and the decision of approval of the application for intervention by the court below, the court below recognizes that the application for intervention in this case is deemed to have been dealt with as an application for assistance, and as long as the petition for invalidation trial of this case was filed within the exclusion period, it shall not be subject to separate exclusion period against the supplementary intervenor. Thus, it cannot
3. On the third ground for appeal
In light of the records, the court below's decision that recognized Gap's No. 3 (U.S. Patent No. 3745187) as an identical invention in comparison with the technical contents of the patent of this case, and recognized as a violation of Article 2 of the former Patent Act since the non-party who is the U.S. can not be recognized as a true inventor of the patent of this case and judged the invalidation of the patent of this case pursuant to Article 61 (1) 1 of the former Patent Act is acceptable, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be employed.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the 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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)