beta
(영문) 특허법원 2014.12.11 2014허5763

등록무효(특)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The title of the instant patent invention 1: The name of the patent invention: the flag gap and its manufacturing method 2) filing date/registration date/registration number: September 9, 2010; the patentee on July 5, 2012; the claim(s) and major drawings (attached Form 1).

Not more than hereinafter, the claim 3 of the patented invention of this case is referred to as the "claim 3 invention of this case", and the remaining claims are also described in the same manner.

B. Invention 1) Invention 2 (No. 5) A, published on April 26, 2007, concerning the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 2007-109498, published on April 26, 2007, the main contents and drawings thereof (attached Form 2) are as follows: (a) Invention 4 (Evidence No. 7) A, published on September 30, 1994, concerning the “floit board” published on the Japanese Patent Gazette No. 6-70274, published on September 30, 1994; and (b) the main contents and drawings thereof are as shown in Section 3 (attached Form 2).

C. On July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that “The instant Claim Nos. 1, 3, and 9 inventions can be easily conducted by the same or comparable inventions as those launched in the comparable inventions, including the comparable inventions 2 and 4, and their registration should be invalidated.” On July 18, 2014, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a request for a trial for invalidation of registration (2013Da1978) against the Defendant on the ground that “the nonobviousness of the instant Claim Nos. 1, 9 inventions is denied, but the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 3 inventions is not denied.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion 3 inventions can easily be derived by combining comparable inventions 2 and 4, and the nonobviousness of the invention is denied.

3. Whether the inventive step of the instant Claim 3 was denied

(a) preparation for 1 Composition 1 against composition and action effects;