[특허무효][미간행]
Article 8(3) and (4) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of January 13, 1990)
Mazil E. L. (Patent Attorney Park Yong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Hanyang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 94 No. 102 dated February 28, 1997
The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the first and fourth points
Examining the reasoning of the decision of the court below in light of the records and the contents of relevant laws and regulations, the court below is just in holding that a claimant constitutes an interested party who can file a petition for a patent invalidation trial of this case, since he/she filed an application for or registered a patent as to the manufacturing method of the same kind of product as the subject matter of the patented invention of this case. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to interested parties
2. On the second and third grounds for appeal
According to Article 8(2) and (3) of the former Patent Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same), the specification of a patent application requires a person who has an ordinary level of technical understanding in the technical field to which the invention pertains, i.e., a person with an average technological skill, based on the description of the invention, can understand the invention accurately and at the same time, to the extent that the invention can be reproduced without any special knowledge by considering the technical level at the time of the application as at the time of application based on the description of the specification. Thus, if the specification of the patent application fails to meet the above requirements, it becomes a ground for invalidation of patent under Article 69(1)1 of the former Patent Act (see Supreme Court Decision 94Hu1459, Jan. 26, 1996).
Upon examining the reasoning of the decision of the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the registration of the patented invention of this case is invalid since the patent application of this case is not stated to the extent that the patent applicant can accurately understand the invention and at the same time, by omitting the technical requirements to be stated in the patent application of this case, and the patent application of this case is not stated to the extent that it can be reproduced. There is no violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of legal principles, contradiction in reasoning, and lack of reasons
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)