logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2015.08.21 2014허9130
등록무효(특)
Text

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on November 17, 2014 on the case shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) The title of the patented invention (A) 1: D2) filing date/registration date//patent number: the patentee: the Defendants 4) 【 Claim 1】 produces control data to produce control data to the extent of control value from a fixed amount of excess, using a value established to detect the status of the claim 1, to control the illumination of the detected surface and lighting, etc., and to connect the transmission apparatus to output exchange signal containing the above control data, and to connect the transmission apparatus with the above transmission apparatus, to receive exchange signal containing the above control data from the receiver, including multiple receiverss extracted from the received exchange signal, and including the above transmission apparatus 21-13-12] 【Request to delete the same exchange signal from multiple receiverss】

B. It is related to the “J” published in the Patent Gazette for the registration publicly announced by H (No. 6).

C. On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for a trial for invalidation of the instant patent invention with the Intellectual Property Tribunal against the Defendants on March 28, 2014, stating that “The nonobviousness of the instant patent invention is denied because a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) could easily make an invention based on comparable inventions.” (ii) The Intellectual Property Tribunal has deliberated on the instant patent invention in the case of 2014No785, and on November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff was the representative or a major shareholder of a corporation manufacturing and selling the same kind of product as the instant patent invention, and unless it is proved that the Plaintiff manufactured and sold the same kind of product as the instant patent invention, the Plaintiff’s petition for a trial that cannot be deemed to have a direct legal interest in the existence of the instant patent invention.

arrow