logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1972. 8. 22. 선고 72다1025 판결
[가처분이의][집20(2)민,168]
Main Issues

Unless a patent right is registered, the assertion that the patent is invalid by the registration of an open space professional engineer shall not be asserted, unless a free trial decision thereon is finalized.

Summary of Judgment

Unless a patent is registered, the assertion that the patent is invalid by the registration of an open space professional engineer shall not be asserted unless a final and conclusive trial decision on invalidation thereof is made.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 89 of the Patent Act

Applicant-Appellee

Han-ri Textiles Industries Corporation

Respondent, appellant

Dongyang Bai Textiles Co.

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na1336 decided April 21, 1972

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

Reasons

The respondent's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the original judgment, the court below acknowledged that the applicant's right to be preserved in this case was the patent right for the manufacturing method of inorganic fibers registered (patent registration number omitted) as of February 17, 1970 (patent registration number falls under the method belonging to the scope of the right of invention No. 206) under the Patent Gazette Act, and found that the patent right was an invalid right due to the registration of an officially known professional engineer, even though the contents of the patented invention were identical to the assertion, unless it is registered, it cannot be asserted unless the decision of invalidation becomes final and conclusive, and it is obvious that the respondent's rejection of the above patent claim was clearly based on the purport of the pleading, and that the respondent, who did not have a trial decision of invalidation, actively disputed the existence of the patent right as above, had a need to preserve the patent right by the above provisional disposition, and therefore, found that there were no grounds for appeal No. 20 as to the above provisional disposition No. 1971, Dec. 19, 1971>

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)

arrow