The case holding that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles regarding confirmation of the scope of patent rights.

Even if there is an application including the reason for the public use at the time of the application for the patent, and the registration was made by the application, the public use can not be considered to fall under the scope of the right.

Supreme Court Decision 63Hu45 Decided October 22, 1964

Korea Heavy Industries Ltd.

The Korean Supreme Court of Justice

Patent Court Decision 65 Trial Decision 41 delivered on September 13, 1966

The original adjudication shall be reversed.

This case is remanded to the Patent Office.

The ground of appeal by the appellant (Appellant) representative is examined;

According to the original adjudication, the court below held that the patent of this case is not worth considering in the adjudication for confirmation of the scope of the right where the patent is in existence as to the assertion that the patent is the publicly known fact prior to the filing of the application. However, with respect to the case on the request for confirmation of the scope of the right to the utility model right, the previous judgment was rendered as follows, and it should be interpreted equally as to the case on the claim for confirmation of the scope of the right to the patent. The above previous precedents are as follows. In other words, the utility model right is granted to new technical device, and the technical level at the time of the filing of the application should be considered without referring to the existence of the invalidation trial, and even if the registration was made by the application, the utility model right has been written in the specification or drawing, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the exclusive license as to the widely used part from 00 to 16th of the utility model right, and thus, the court below's decision is inconsistent with the legal principles on the extension of the patent right to the extent of the patent right.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong