beta
Text
1. The part of the trial decision rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on April 30, 2014, with respect to the case No. 2013Da3339, excluding the parts for which correction is recognized.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 24, 2013, the Plaintiff was merged with the Defendant prior to the filing of a lawsuit (the former Defendant prior to the filing of a lawsuit at the time of filing a patent registration), as the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board No. 2013Da339, May 26, 2015.
hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant" at the bar regardless of whether before or after the taking over of the lawsuit.
A) On the grounds that “The instant patent invention is identical to the cited invention 1 that was filed before the filing date and disclosed after the filing date of the patent application, and thus, the registration is invalidated pursuant to Article 29(3) of the Patent Act, and the nonobviousness is denied as it could easily be derived from the cited invention 2 or 5, and thus, the registration is invalidated pursuant to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act.” In the foregoing invalidation trial procedure, the Defendant filed a request for correction to correct the claims of the instant patent invention on February 25, 2014, and again filed a request for correction on April 2, 2014 (hereinafter “instant request for correction”).
(2) On April 30, 2014, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Commission recognized the instant correction request as lawful (hereinafter “instant correction request”) and rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for invalidation of registration on the ground that “The instant correction request was accepted by the instant correction request,” and the remainder of claims are identical in the same manner. In the case of the entire parts of the instant patent invention recognized by the said correction request, “the instant correction invention” is not identical to the cited Invention 1, and the instant correction invention is not identical to the instant invention. The instant correction invention under paragraphs (1), (3) through (5), and (8) of the same Article is not identical to the cited Invention 1, and its nonobviousness is not denied by the cited Invention 2 through 5.”
(See Attached Form 2) The summary of the cited Invention is as follows.
Patent invention 1.