logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.27 2015가합564148
손해배상(지)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s patent registration Plaintiff (hereinafter “D Co., Ltd.” and “Co. A”) registered each of the patents listed in the Plaintiff’s patent list as shown below (hereinafter “each of the instant patents”). Among them, E Co., Ltd. was registered as “instant First Patent” and “F Patent 2” as indicated in the following table.

A patentee of the patent number invention on the filing date of the filing date of the patent application, the inventor GH EI, JK LF M Plaintiff J

B. The Plaintiff and Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (1) around June 201, 201, the Plaintiff is Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (N, hereinafter “C”).

A) A contract was concluded between C and C to grant a non-exclusive license on each patent of this case, and C terminated the said contract on May 21, 2014 on the ground that C does not pay a license fee properly. However, C, even after the termination of the contract as above, each patent of this case was used for each patent of this case, and each of the instant infringed products listed in the separate sheet 1 through 4 (hereinafter “each of the instant infringed products”) and “the instant infringed products” individually.

(2) On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a provisional injunction against infringement of patent rights with the Seoul Central District Court (2014Kahap80442). On June 5, 2015, the said court rendered a partial decision of rejection on the ground that C continued to produce and sell each patent of this case using each patent of this case while the contract concluded between the Plaintiff and C had been terminated, and each of the patent rights of this case was infringed upon, and on September 4, 2015, the said decision was approved on June 16, 2014 (3) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C on June 16, 2014 against the Seoul Central District Court (2014Gahap5415999) and the said court recognized each of the patent infringement as being prohibited by each of the patent infringement and each of the patent infringement.

arrow