[1] The scope of representation in a lawsuit permissible to a patent attorney under Article 8 of the Patent Attorney Act (=the revocation of a trial decision by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board) and whether a patent attorney's representation in a lawsuit is allowed in civil cases such as a claim for prohibition of infringement or a claim for damages, etc. which cause infringement (negative)

[2] In a case where the patent attorney Gap et al. prepared and submitted a petition of appeal as the plaintiff's attorney in the civil procedure where the infringement of trademark rights is caused, the case holding that the above appeal is unlawful as it was filed by a person who is not an attorney-at-law and is not represented by

[1] Article 87 of the Civil Procedure Act declares the so-called principle of attorney-at-law representation by stipulating that “no person may become an attorney-at-law other than an attorney-at-law who may act in accordance with the law.” Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Patent Attorney Act provides that “a patent attorney shall act as an agent in the Korean Intellectual Property Office or court on matters relating to patent, utility model, design or trademark and conduct appraisal of such matters and other affairs related thereto.” Here, “matters pertaining to patent, utility model, design or trademark” means various trials of the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal regarding patent, utility model, design or trademark (hereinafter “patent, etc.”) and litigation seeking revocation of a trial decision by the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal. Accordingly, the scope of attorney-at-law representation permitted to a patent attorney pursuant to Article 8 of the Patent Attorney Act is limited to a litigation for revocation of a trial decision by the Korean Intellectual Property Attorney and is not permitted in a civil case such as a patent attorney’s claim for prohibition of infringement or a claim for damages under the current law.”

[2] In a case where the patent attorney Gap et al. prepared and submitted a petition of appeal as the plaintiff's attorney in the civil lawsuit where the infringement of trademark rights is caused, the case holding that the above appeal is unlawful because it was filed by a person who is not an attorney-at-law and is not an attorney-at-law and is not represented by a representative,

[1] Article 87 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 2 and 8 of the Patent Attorney Act / [2] Article 87 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 2 and 8 of the Patent Attorney Act

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Go Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gyeonggi Cultural Foundation (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Yellow-man et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na33219 decided November 4, 2010

The appeal shall be dismissed. All costs of appeal shall be borne by persons listed in the attached list.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant appeal.

Article 87 of the Civil Procedure Act declares the principle of attorney-at-law representation by stipulating that “no person, other than an agent who is entitled to act in accordance with the Act, shall be an attorney-at-law.” Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Patent Attorney Act provides that “a patent attorney shall act as an agent for the Korean Intellectual Property Office or court in matters concerning patent, utility model, design, or trademark and perform appraisal and other affairs pertaining to such matters.” Here, “matters concerning patent, utility model, design, or trademark” means various trials of the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal on patent, utility model, design, or trademark (hereinafter referred to as “patent, etc.”) and litigation seeking revocation of a trial decision by the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal. Accordingly, the scope of attorney-at-law representation permitted to a patent attorney pursuant to Article 8 of the Patent Attorney Act is limited to a litigation seeking revocation of a trial decision by the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal and is not allowed in a civil case such as a patent attorney’s claim for prohibition of infringement by the current law or a claim for damages.”

Examining the record in light of the above legal principles, the petition of appeal in this case was prepared and submitted by 16 patent attorneys listed in the attached list, including the Nonparty, as the Plaintiff’s legal representative. Ultimately, the appeal in this case was filed by a person who is not an attorney-at-law and is not an attorney-at-law and is not an attorney-at-law and is not an attorney-at-law. Thus,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against 16 patent attorneys under Articles 108 and 107(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Patent Attorney: Omitted

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)