beta
Text
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on May 17, 2018 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on a case No. 2016No124 shall be revoked.
2. The total cost of the lawsuit.
Reasons
1. Presumed factual basis
A. On November 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition for correction trial with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 2016Ma124, Nov. 4, 2016 (hereinafter “instant petition for correction trial”). The Plaintiff filed a petition for correction trial with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (hereinafter “instant petition for correction trial”).
(2) On February 20, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal notified the Plaintiff of the submission of the Plaintiff’s statement to the effect that “The Claim 1, after the correction of the instant registered petition, may easily make a device by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the device pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) from 1 through 3 of the prior petition.” (2) The Plaintiff’s claim 1 of the instant registered petition on April 19, 2018, following the Plaintiff:
4) Around May 17, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal submitted an amendment to the correction as described in Article 33(b) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 14035, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same). However, despite the Plaintiff’s amendment, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the instant petition for correction trial on the ground that the Plaintiff’s petition for correction trial violates Article 136(4) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 14035, Feb. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) and Article 4(2) of the Utility Model Act, and is unlawful.
3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant trial decision by the Patent Court No. 2018Heo4584, but the instant court prior to the remanding of the case, prior to November 1, 2018, rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “The nonobviousness of the instant claim No. 1, after the correction of the instant registered petition, can be easily designed by a person with ordinary skills through a combination of prior art No. 1 through No. 3, and thus, the nonobviousness of the instant claim is denied.”
4) On this issue: