Status of interested parties reconciliationd not to dispute a patent between the patentee and the patentee;

If an interested party in a particular case conflicts between a person having a patent right and a person having a patent right jointly and severally, it can be seen that there is no dispute between them, and thus, the interested party has become a person having a patent right who is likely to have set up against the interest of the patent right, or has not been inferred in using the invention. Thus, it may be deemed that there is a result of losing the status of the interested party requesting a trial for invalidation on the patent of the person

Article 89(2) of the former Patent Act (Law No. 950 of December 31, 1961), Article 97(2) of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Hu14 delivered on February 28, 1963, 67Hu9 delivered on August 29, 1967, and 70Hu3 delivered on March 24, 1970

claimant

Patent Attorney Seo-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office No. 1975 No. 3 of October 13, 1977

The original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Korean Intellectual Property Office.

The ground of appeal by the agent of the respondent (appellant) shall be deemed to be the ground of appeal by the respondent.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the original adjudication, on September 19, 1977, regarding the assertion that the interest of the claimant was extinguished by submitting a written appeal, a correction, and a protocol of compromise, the court below held that the argument of the claimant for the appeal on this point cannot be established, since the court below held that, according to the contents of compromise, Eul (appellant) stated that the dispute concerning the adjudication and the adjudication on appeal against the patent (patent registration number omitted) should not be cut off, and that the interests of both parties have ceased to exist due to such compromise, but even if the written compromise was submitted in the adjudication, the court below held that even if the written compromise cannot be deemed to have been extinguished, unless there is a fact such as the establishment of a license and the sharing of rights.

However, according to the provision of Article 89 (2) of the former Patent Act (Article 97 (2) of the current Act), if the claimant does not constitute an interested party or examiner, the claimant of this case should ex officio examine and determine whether the claimant is an interested party (see Supreme Court Decision 70Hu3, Mar. 24, 1970) since the court below's decision to invalidate the patent as stated in the above Article 89 (2) of the former Patent Act is unreasonable because it does not constitute an interested party. Thus, the court below's decision to invalidate the patent as stated in the above Article 97 (2) of the former Patent Act can no longer be seen as an argument that there is no possibility that the plaintiff would have any effect on the patent as to the patent of this case. Thus, the court below's decision to invalidate the patent of this case would have any effect on the patent of this case, which is an interested party, as well as the court's decision to invalidate the patent of this case (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu1617, Feb. 28, 196).

Therefore, the original adjudication is reversed, and the case is remanded to the appellate court of the Patent State which is the original trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)