[2] The case holding that there was an error of law in deciding the invalidity of a patented invention on the basis of the corrected specification, etc. after examining the legitimacy of the correction in the first correction request which was already rejected and did not exist, and that the trial decision which judged the invalidity of a patented invention was the object of the trial

[2] The case holding that there was an error of law in deciding the invalidity of a patented invention on the basis of the corrected specification, etc. after examining whether the correction was lawful for the first correction that was already rejected and did not exist, and that the trial decision which judged the invalidity of the patented invention was the object of the trial for the

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

[Evidence] Each entry of Gap's 1 to 7

A. Defendant’s patented invention

(1) Name: a large quantity of production methods through the distribution of fracks of fracks of fracks;

(2) Date of application/registration date/registration number: June 16, 200/4 April 23, 2003/38078

(c) A patentee: The defendant;

(4) Claim(2) : Shall add 1 to 100g/L to the biological reaction machine, PepsisiCoone to 20g/L, filial extractions one to 1 to 20g/L, MgSO4,7H2O 1 to 10g/L, KH2O 40.1 to 1g/L, and K 2HH 40.1 to 1g/L, while continuously supplying 1 to 25 to 57 pH to the biological reaction machine, and continuously supplying 1 to 00g of 1 to 10g of grans and continuously supplying 1 to 00g of grans and supplying 1 to 00g of grans at early intervals with 00 times of grans and supplying 1 to 10g of grans of grans of grans of grans of grans of grans of grans of grans of g.

In paragraph 4.2, in regard to paragraph 4.2, the above additional supply is a fluorological or continuous supply of the glusium alone or in combination with the glusium of 10g/L and the 5g/L extractions.

B. Claim for invalidation of patent and Defendant’s correction

(1) A request for a trial on invalidation of a Japanese medicine corporation and the defendant's first request for correction

On September 25, 2003, the Japanese Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. filed a petition for trial to invalidate a patent on the ground that the patent invention falls under Article 42(3) and (4) of the Patent Act, since the patent application is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and the description is unclear, it falls under Article 42(3) and (4) of the Patent Act, since the patent application falls under Article 42(3) and (4) of the Patent Act.

On November 29, 2003, the defendant submitted the following correction request ("the first correction request") in the form of amending a written response to a request for trial in the above invalidation trial procedure, and then withdraws the request for correction later, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal returned the above request to the defendant.

[Contents of the first correction request]

Paragraph 2 of the claim(s) : Shall add a ship containing Bangladesh 5 to 40g/L, PepsiCoone (Petone), 1 to 20g/L, MagSO4,7H2O 1 to 10g/L, and KH2PO 40.1 to 1g/L to the effective flag, and added a ship with a ship containing ggrings, MgSO4, 7H2O 1 to 10g/L, and KH2PO 40.1 to 1g/L, while maintaining PH 0.1 to 5 through 7 0.1 to 0.1.0 L/min, supply the air through the air compression and continuously predicting the vegetable concentration of the vegetable acid to maintain the vegetable concentration of the vegetable 10 to 10 to 10 to 10 to 30 to 30 to 30 to 30 to 30 to g.

(2) The plaintiff's request for nullity trial and the defendant's second request for correction

On May 11, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a petition for an invalidation trial (No. 2004Da9755) on the ground that the invention described in the publication published prior to the filing of the patent application could easily be made by a person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field. The claim is not supported by the detailed description of the invention, and the description constitutes grounds for invalidation under Articles 29(2), 42(3), and 42(4) of the Patent Act, because it is unclear.

On July 13, 2004, the Defendant rendered a request for correction (hereinafter “the second request for correction”) to delete some of the detailed descriptions of the specification of the patented invention in the above invalidation trial procedure. The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board accepted the above request for correction.

[Contents of the second correction request]

Among the parts of the invention in the detailed description, "for the purpose of the cultivation period of spawn, it was investigated by using the 7L Zinteus linteus linteus spawn with the growth of spawn and carbon source consumption. As shown in Do 1, as shown in Do 1, it was investigated that the spawn growth was spawnized until the 6th day of spawn as shown in Do 1, and it was found that the carbon source in the spawn was not completely raised, and that it did not act as stress on the spawn."

C. Acknowledgement of the first request for correction and rejection of a request for invalidation trial

On June 30, 2005, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board consolidated the above two invalidation trial cases and accepted the defendant's first request for correction on June 30, 2005, and dismissed the request for invalidation trial by the plaintiff et al.

(1) The amendment of this case is to correct paragraph (2) of the claim, and to correct the gru course’s concentration from “5 to 100g/L” to “5 to “25 to 30 ” during the course of the distribution to “25 to 30 x” from “25 to “25 x 30 x” to “the scope of the claim is reduced in order to match with the detailed description of the invention. The deletion of the part in which “I would like to delete the part in which “I would like to add carbon gru course with the initial concentration of 10 g/L,” is obvious in the initial specification and the claim(s) that the initial concentration of the gru course, which is the carbon cause, is 5 to 40 g/L, so it is to clarify the clerical error and ambiguous description. These corrections are not to expand or modify the claim(s) and are recognized as new and non-obviousness in comparison with the cited inventions, thereby satisfying the requirements for correction under each subparagraph of Article 47(3), Article 136(3) and (4) of the Patent Act.

(2) The corrected patented invention is supported by a detailed description, and is so stated that it can be easily worked by a person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field, and the same as the comparable inventions or cannot be easily described by a person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field. Thus, it does not constitute grounds for invalidation under Articles 29(2) and 42(3) and (4) of the Patent Act.

2. Whether the trial decision is legitimate;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's ground for revocation

Although the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the first request for correction submitted during the trial proceedings No. 2003Da2043, and accepted the second request for correction submitted during the trial proceedings No. 2004Da975, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board held that the defendant's patented invention is valid based on the corrected statement.

B. Whether a trial decision dismissing a request for invalidation trial after receiving the first request for correction is legitimate

Where a correction of the specification or drawing(s) of a patented invention is requested in a trial for invalidation, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal shall examine the legitimacy of the correction requested in the procedure, and shall determine the invalidity of the patented invention based on the corrected specification, etc. if the correction is lawful, and shall determine the invalidity of the patented invention based on the specification, etc.

However, in the instant trial decision, the first request for correction that had already been returned to the Defendant and did not exist, and the correction was recognized by examining the legitimacy of the correction, and determined that there was no ground for invalidation as asserted by the Plaintiff, etc. in the Defendant’s patented invention based on the corrected specification, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Cho Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)