beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s patent invention 1: The date of application 2)/ the date of registration/registration number of the structure installed on the board: October 24, 2001; the claim(s) and the main drawings: [Attachment 1] and the claim(s) of the Plaintiff’s patent invention(s) (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s patent invention”; hereinafter “instant patent invention(s)”; b) the claim(s) of the instant patent invention are referred to in paragraph(1) of the instant patent invention; c) of the cited invention(s) published on December 15, 200, the registration number of the registered utility model publicly announced on December 15, 200, with the registration number No. 20-207911(Ga evidence 4). The main contents and drawings are as follows:
2) On the registered Utility Model Gazette publicly announced on October 12, 2001, the main contents and drawings (attached Form 2) of “the improvement structure of the waterway beer” in the registration number No. 20-24371 (Evidence No. 5) are as follows: (a) the main contents and drawings of the invention are as follows: (b) the main contents and drawings of the invention are as follows: (c) the invention in comparison with the disclosure number No. 2000-21374 (Evidence No. 6) in the Utility Model Gazette published on December 26, 2000; and (d) the main contents and drawings thereof are as follows: (a) the invention in comparison with the specification of the Utility Model Gazette published on December 26, 200, with the disclosure number No. 200-21374 (Evidence No. 6).
C. (1) On August 16, 201, Defendant Tone Star Co., Ltd.: (a) the instant patent invention against the Plaintiff is called “a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains” (hereinafter “ordinary technician”).
(2) The Patent Tribunal filed a petition for a registration invalidation trial (2011Da1935) on the instant patent invention by asserting that the nonobviousness of the invention could be easily claimed by the cited inventions, etc., and the Defendant A participated in the instant patent invention as an intervenor as an interested party during the process of the instant petition for trial. (2) The Patent Tribunal participated in the instant claim 1 invention as of December 28, 2012.