Whether there is a benefit in confirmation, in cases where the device subject to adjudication in the active scope of a trial and the device actually implemented by the claimant are different (negative)

Where a claimant requests an affirmative confirmation of the scope of right that certain goods fall under the scope of his/her registered right, the adjudication decision shall have the effect only on a specific goods, even if the adjudication decision becomes final and conclusive that the goods for which the claimant does not implement fall under the scope of his/her registered right, and there is no effect on the goods for which the claimant actually requests the adjudication. Thus, a request for affirmative confirmation of the scope of right for the goods for which the claimant does not implement should be rejected and dismissed because there is no benefit of confirmation.

Article 50 of the Utility Model Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Hu1431 delivered on February 9, 1990 (Gong1990, 649) Supreme Court Decision 92Hu438 delivered on October 9, 1992 (Gong1992, 3142), Supreme Court Decision 92Hu2182 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong194, 1338), Supreme Court Decision 94Hu247 delivered on March 8, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1257)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Lee Dong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Yellow-do et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2001Heo6162 delivered on September 26, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Where a claimant requests an affirmative confirmation of the scope of right of a utility model right that certain goods fall within the scope of the registered right of the utility model right, the adjudication decision becomes final and conclusive, even if the goods for which the claimant does not implement fall within the scope of the registered right of the goods, and the goods for which the claimant does not fall within the scope of the registered right of the goods, the adjudication decision does not have any effect on the goods for which the claimant has made an actual respondent. Thus, a request for affirmative confirmation of the scope of right for the goods for which the claimant has not implemented is illegal and dismissed as there is no benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 94Hu247 delivered on March 8, 196).

The court below examined the real body of the vibration screening machine (hereinafter referred to as "vibration") actually implemented by the plaintiff, as the land, and determined that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant, a utility model right holder within the registered height of this case, applied for an affirmative confirmation of the scope of a right with the plaintiff as the other party, and that a specific net is being implemented by the plaintiff, and that the defendant compared a specific net with the body actually implemented by the plaintiff, for reasons as stated in its holding, the specific net has an upper layer between the upper net and the lower net, and that the defendant's specific net has an inner side of the upper net frame, and it is not necessary to install a sufficient level between the upper net and the upper net, and thus, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to have a specific net connected with the upper net, and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to have a specific net connected with the upper net, and there is no difference between the upper net and the upper net, and it is not necessary for the defendant to have a specific net connected with the upper body.

In light of the records, the defendant's fact-finding and judgment are just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and the defendant's physical existence is not limited to the existence of a specific body, but to the extent necessary to achieve the effectiveness of the formation. However, it is difficult to see that the court below's use of the method of examining the actual body in the land without being separately requested by a specialized appraisal agency in verifying whether there is such distance or space on the network operated by the plaintiff, and there is no data to see that there is any difference or space in the above meaning in the body implemented by the plaintiff. Thus, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)