beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.
Reasons
1. Presumed factual basis
A. Circumstances 1 of the instant trial decision: Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”)
(B) On September 22, 2017, the Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a claim for a patent invalidation trial (2017Da3029) on the instant patent invention against the Plaintiff, a patentee of the instant patent invention, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 20, 2018. On February 20, 2018, the Patent Tribunal rendered a trial ruling accepting the instant patent claim by the auxiliary intervenor on the grounds that the nonobviousness of the instant patent invention is denied by comparable invention 1 and 2 or by comparable invention 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “related invalidation trial ruling”).
(2) On March 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Intervenor seeking revocation of the relevant invalidation trial decision (hereinafter “related invalidation case”) under this Court No. 2018Heo2984.
3. On the other hand, on April 17, 2018, when the relevant invalidation case was pending in this court, the Plaintiff’s claim 1, 5, and 9 of the instant patent invention under the Patent Tribunal No. 2018No45, the following:
B. 4) On September 19, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for correction trial with the content of correction as described in paragraph (4). (4) On September 19, 2018, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a correction notice (Evidence 2) stating that “The claim 1 following the correction of the instant patented invention did not meet the correction requirements under Article 136(2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871, Mar. 3, 2006; hereinafter the same) because it did not meet the correction requirements under Article 136(2) of the former Patent Act since the non-obviousness of the patent invention was denied by comparison 1 through 4, and thus, the patent applicant does not meet the correction requirements under Article 136(4) of the former Patent Act at the time of filing the patent application.”