logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2017.12.08 2017허2987
권리범위확인(특)
Text

1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on March 31, 2017 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on a case No. 2016Da3722 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 24, 2016, the Defendant: (a) filed against the Plaintiff on November 24, 2016, the Plaintiff’s instant Claim 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”) regarding the instant patent invention as indicated in paragraph (c) as follows: (b) the Plaintiff’s instant Claim 1 as indicated in paragraph (1) (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”).

2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a petition for confirmation of the scope of right that falls under the scope of right. As to the invention subject to confirmation, the Plaintiff filed a petition for confirmation of the scope of right with comparable inventions 1 and 2 with the person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the patent invention of this case pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) as prior inventions 1, but the comparable inventions 2 did not submit the comparable inventions 2 as prior inventions.

Since it can easily be seen from the perspective, it was argued that it constitutes a free-to-work technology.

3) However, on March 31, 2017, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the challenged invention is free license technology under comparable inventions 1 and 2, and rendered the instant trial ruling accepting the Defendant’s request on the ground that the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the instant Claim 1 invention. (b) The name of the instant patent invention (Evidence A No. 2 and 3) invention: the filing date of the instant patent invention 2) / the registration date / registration date / registration date / the registration date / the registration number : the patentee on February 16, 2013 (No. 10-140484, May 29, 2014): Defendant 4) invention constituted an automatic fire extinguishing machine equipped with the previous outline of the instant Claim 1 and 2, with an automatic operating device, with an independent fire extinguishing machine with an independent operating device / [10-10-170-10-17-20-17-17-17-20-4-10-4-4-17-2.

arrow