Where a trial for correction of the same patented invention is pending in the Intellectual Property Tribunal, whether the trial for revocation of the patent invalidation trial on the patented invention pending in the court of final appeal shall be suspended (negative)

Articles 133 and 136 of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3394 Decided November 30, 2007

E&T E&B Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Hank Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Jeon Soo-ok et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2014Heo1082 Decided July 25, 2014

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

The ground of appeal purporting that the trial on revocation of a patent invalidation trial on a patented invention pending in the court of final appeal should not be interrupted on the ground that a trial on correction of the same patented invention is pending in the Intellectual Property Tribunal (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3394, Nov. 30, 2007). Thus, the ground of appeal that the trial on correction should not be interrupted on the other premise cannot be accepted.

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

A. We examine the records.

(1) In the patent invalidation trial against the patented invention (patent registration number omitted) of this case (patent registration number omitted) using the name “vehicle 2 wheels/4 wheels of the vehicle,” the Defendant deleted paragraphs (1) through (6) of the patent claim on July 24, 2013, and subsequently corrected Paragraph (7), which was a dependent claim under Paragraph (1), and changed the name into an independent claim (Article 7 of the amended Claim No. 7 of the Patent Claim No. hereinafter “instant Claim No. 7”).

(2) If the composition of the instant Claim 7 invention is compared with the composition of “a combination means of display and display panel” of comparable inventions 1 in comparison with the composition of “a combination means of display and display panel” of comparable inventions 1 in the holding of the lower judgment, both compositions are the same in that they control the display and display panel in one of the situations where the display and stop are possible due to the movement of the display panel. However, the composition of the instant Claim 7 invention is to ensure that the combination and cancellation of the display are achieved by inserting and leaving the “combined hole” by inserting and leaving the combined base, whereas the composition of the instant Claim 1 in comparison with the composition of the instant Claim 7 in the light of the fact that: (a) there is no need to consider the technical combination of the combinations in accordance with the adoption of the combination hole instead of the specification of the instant patented inventions; and (b) there is no need to consider the technical combination of the combinations to change the form of the combination and display, and in view of the circumstances of the arrangement of the number and hole in the art.

(3) In addition, all the remaining compositions of the instant Claim 7 are cited inventions 1 and comparable inventions 6 as indicated in the lower judgment, or can easily be derived therefrom, and there is no special technical difficulty in combining them.

(4) Furthermore, the effect of the instant Claim 7 invention is likely to be predicted from comparable inventions 1 and 6, and is not obvious.

B. Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 7 invention is denied by comparable inventions 1 and 6. The lower court is justifiable in determining the same purport, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of inventive step of a patented

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of 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 Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)