손해배상(지)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On September 15, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) drafted and publicly announced the “standards for packing, construction, and maintenance and management of speculative block”; and (b) applied the said criteria on May 201, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 4,907,738 as compensation for damages incurred by infringement of patent rights and damages incurred therefrom against the Defendant on the ground that the act of executing the “surgical block package work around the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seodaemun Cultural Park Station” constitutes an act of infringing the Plaintiff’s patent right on the “surging structure” under Article 847297 of the Patent Number (hereinafter “instant patent invention”).
Accordingly, the main text of Article 133(3) of the Patent Act provides that "if a trial decision invalidating a patent has become final and conclusive, the patent right shall be deemed never to have existed." According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 16 and 17 as stated in Eul, the defendant claimed a trial for invalidation of the patent of the patented invention of this case against the plaintiff under the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 201159 on April 13, 2018. The Patent Tribunal rendered a trial decision that the patent of this case should be invalidated on the ground that the patented invention of this case is denied by prior inventions on July 17, 2018, and the above trial decision became final and conclusive on August 30, 2018 on the ground that the patented invention of this case is denied by prior inventions.
Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s patent right to the patented invention of this case shall be deemed not to have existed from the beginning in accordance with the main sentence of Article 133(3) of the Patent Act, upon the confirmation of the invalidation decision
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is premised on the existence of the above patent right, is without merit to examine the remainder.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.