logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.11.28 2013가합14630
집행판결청구
Text

1. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the District Court for the District of the United States District.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation of the United States of America (hereinafter “U.S.”) with the purpose of manufacturing and selling machinery whose coefficient classification is certified for paper paper, paper, check, etc., and the Defendant is a corporation with the purpose of technical research service business, etc.

B. The plaintiff inputs a number of 5,96,459,806 patent (which relates to automatic identification of various face values using the reflectr characteristics of the sign printed on the ground surface; hereinafter referred to as "806 patent"), registration number 5,96,456 patent [it is related to device and method to reduce ground value by prompt identification of face value and determination of authenticity of ground value; hereinafter referred to as "456 patent], registration number 5,909,503 patent (which is related to identifying and determining authenticity of ground value; hereinafter referred to as "53 patent"), registration number 5,909,503 patent (which is related to the device and method to determine authenticity of ground value; hereinafter referred to as "patent 503 patent"), registration number 6,381,354 patent (which is referred to as "patent 40,000 patent) from each of the above patented products (which is referred to as "patent 504, 504, 354, 3554, and 464, etc. patent each of this case.

C. From around February 2003, the Defendant had manufactured products name SB-100(c) (f), SB-100 (www/O cf), SB-100, SB-100, and SB-1800 (hereinafter “Defendant’s products”). From February 28, 2005 and July 20, 2007, the Defendant entered into a sales contract on the said products with the amro-Aro-U.S. Corporation (hereinafter “Amro-Assorpo”), and accordingly, imported and sold the said products from the Defendant in the United States.

The plaintiff around September 2007 against the defendant and the Maro District Court of the United States.

arrow