beta
Text
1. The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on July 25, 2014 by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on the case shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
(a) Name of the invention 1) invention of this case: D2) filing date/registration date/registration number: Claim No. 1; B. Description and drawings of the invention subject to confirmation are as shown in attached Table 2; (c) prior inventions 1 (No. 4-1) prior inventions at home: Public notification period/public notification method: CN 204943B) December 27, 1989; (2) prior inventions 2 (No. 6-1); public notification period/public notification method of 2 (No. 6-4) prior inventions for multi-functional bedclothes; (3) public notification method of 2) prior inventions (No. 11-32 (b) public notification of the Patent Gazette on January 6, 199; and (3) public notification method of 194(No. 496) public notification method of 4) public notification; (4) public notification method of 2) public notification of the Patent Gazette at home;
D. On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiffs asserted that the challenged invention does not fall under the scope of the right of the instant Claim Nos. 1 or 4, and claimed a passive trial to confirm the scope of the right of the instant invention. 2) On July 25, 2014, the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial decision that the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right of the instant Claim Nos. 1 or 4, and rejected the Plaintiffs’ request for a trial.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, 6-8 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to whether the instant trial decision is justifiable
A. For the following reasons, the plaintiffs asserted that the challenged invention does not fall under the scope of the right to the invention of this case 1 or 4, but the decision of this case dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal is unlawful.
1. Claim 1 invention of this case and the remaining claims citing it are explained by abstract expressions.