(a) Cancellation of a patent granted prior to enforcement of the Patent Act (Act No. 950), and whether Article 45-2 of the Patent Act is applied;

(b) Scope of the interested parties provided for in Article 45(1) of the Patent Act;

(a) An interested person provided for in Article 45(2) of the former Patent Act (Act No. 1293, Mar. 5, 63) shall include cases where a person, etc., who engages in a business related to a patent-related to the patent-related invention, is likely to suffer any disadvantage due to the continuation of the patent-related to the patent-related invention, regardless of whether the patent

B. In the application of the provisions of Article 45-2 of the former Patent Act (No. 1293, Mar. 5, 63) which was newly established in order to revoke a patent right by deeming it an abuse of the patent right if the patent right has not been worked for a specified period, the period of non-working as the grounds for revocation shall be calculated from the time when the said new provision was implemented, and shall not be retroactive to the transfer thereof.

Article 45(1) of the Patent Act; Article 45(2) of the Patent Act

Plaintiff

New Korea Stock Company

Director of the Patent Bureau

United States District Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 64Gu10 delivered on July 14, 1966

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney is examined.

An action for confirmation is a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the present existence of a specific right or legal relation, and it cannot be the object of a lawsuit for confirmation. If the plaintiff's claim that the (registration number omitted) invention specification of the plaintiff's (registration number omitted) patent is to obtain confirmation of the registered patent increase issued as of April 23, 1959, such as the plaintiff's claim, it is to seek confirmation of a simple fact, and it cannot be the object of a lawsuit for confirmation, and it is to seek confirmation of the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff's claim is not the object of a lawsuit for confirmation. In this case, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation is to seek confirmation of the "Sckro ck's ck's and six kinds of 6 kinds of sckn's patent (registration number omitted) which belong to the scope of the right of the plaintiff's claim, so the original judgment can reasonably interpret the plaintiff's intention with respect to the above claim by the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff, and eventually, the plaintiff's (registration number omitted) invention does not err in all the judgment.

Judgment on the fifth ground for the same reason.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff may cancel the plaintiff's previous patent since the amendment of Article 45-2 of the Patent Act (amended on March 5, 1963) and 30 days have passed after its promulgation until April 5, 1966, which was 3 years since its implementation. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's cancellation of the previous patent as of December 12, 1963, which was 1963, is unfair. However, in the amendment of the Patent Act of March 5, 1963, the above transitional provision was not provided for the previous patent as of March 5, 1963, which was 3 years from its implementation. Thus, Article 45-2 of the Patent Act does not stipulate a transitional provision such as the beginning of the period of 3 years from its implementation.

However, the part of the Patent Act (Act No. 950) was amended on March 5, 1963 and newly established Article 45-2 was added to the ground for revocation of a new patent. According to Article 45-2 of the Patent Act, if a patentee fails to implement the patent in Korea without just cause for three or more years after the grant of a patent, it shall be deemed abuse of a patent and thus the patent director-general may cancel the patent right. However, if the above provision is applied to a patent granted prior to the enforcement of the amended Act, unless there is a special provision, it shall be respected the people's vested right. Thus, the period of three years shall be calculated from the time when the new ground for revocation was implemented, and in this case, the previous Patent Act (No. 91, Oct. 5, 1946) which was in force at the time of April 23, 1959 and Article 101 and Article 1024-2 of the former Patent Act (No. 91, Oct. 5, 1946).

The six points of the same reason are examined.

The "interested person" stipulated in Article 45 (1) of the Patent Act refers to a person who is engaged in an invention research related to the patent of the invention or a person who is engaged in a business related to the patent of the invention, and where the patent of the invention is likely to suffer disadvantage as the patent of the invention continues to continue to exist effectively, it shall also be included. Thus, the judgment of the court below, which is the supplementary intervenor, has the patent of the manufacturing method of the invention of the main manufacturing method (registration number omitted), which is similar to the patent of the main manufacturing method (registration number omitted), and is also working for it, it is reasonable to determine that the company is an interested person under Article 45 (1) of the Patent Act, and the argument is groundless.

However, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the ground of appeal No. 5 is with merit, and thus, the original judgment is reversed, and the judgment of the court below is delivered with the assent of all participating judges in order to re-examine.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu