In case of an appeal, the Director-General of Patent or Director-General of Patent, which was not a claimant or respondent, shall not be

In a case of an appeal concerning a patent invalidation trial on which the petitioner and the respondent have filed in an appeal, it is unlawful to make the Director-General of the Korean Patent Office-Appellee.

Article 137(1) of the Patent Act

Maximum Disease Authority and one other

Director of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy

Modern Industrial Company

Patent Court Decision 1962Na106, July 11, 1962

The appeal against the Director-General of the Appellee shall be dismissed, and the appeal against the highest right of the Appellee and the highest right of the appeal shall be dismissed.

All costs of appeal shall be borne by all appellant.

First of all, the health stand for the eligibility of the party to the Appellee

This case is related to the adjudication on the invalidation of a patent in which the petitioner and the respondent are the respondent in the adjudication on the invalidation of a patent in the adjudication on the appeal, and the highest right to the illness is the respondent in the adjudication on the appeal, so it is qualified under Article 137 of the Patent Act. However, in the adjudication on the appeal, the Director-General of the Patent Office is not entitled to the adjudication on the appeal under the above provision as long as it was not the requester or the respondent in the adjudication on the appeal, and the appeal

As to the grounds of appeal by appellant

The conclusion of the decision on appeal is that the application of subparagraph 1 of this case is published in Japan in comparison with the contents of subparagraph 1 of this case, which are distributed in Korea, and the solid alcoholic content is kept as a main body. Therefore, it is not acceptable that "Pinin" is an effective element for the production of alcoholic content, production of alcoholic content, and fire-proof. Moreover, as the patent application of this case has a sufficient effect as "Pinin" as stated in subparagraph 1 of this case, and it is not possible to interfere with the effect of combustion assistance in the patent application of this case, it is impossible to recognize newness in light of the contents of subparagraph 1 of this Article, and as such, the application of this case cannot be recognized in light of the contents of subparagraph 1 of this Article, and it is not possible to recognize newness by simply "Pinin", and if it is not possible to recognize that the patent application of this case would not bring about the effect of the decision on appeal as to the grant of a high-type alcoholic content in lieu of "Pin" without seeking whether it is stored and stored.

It shall not be recognized that there is no illegality in the appellate decision invalidating the patent due to the lack of newness.

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, for the purposes of Article 136 of the Patent Act, Articles 395, 383, 400, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)