[1] The time when the correction becomes final and conclusive where a correction is requested in a patent invalidation trial or an opposition procedure

[2] Where a patent holder filed a complaint against a decision of revocation by the board of examiners after the board of examiners recognized correction in the procedure for filing an objection, the case holding that it is justifiable that the board of examiners remanded the case to have given the patentee an opportunity to present his/her opinion on correction by re-examination of the request for correction and made a decision not to recognize correction

[1] Articles 69 (current Deletion), 77 (current Deletion), and 136 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 641 of Feb. 3, 2001) / [2] Articles 69 (current Deletion) and 77 (current Deletion) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001)

Digital Holdings Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2005Heo8746 Decided September 1, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Where a request for correction is made in a patent invalidation trial or a patent objection procedure, whether to recognize a correction is examined together with a decision-making procedure on the invalidation trial or objection. Thus, unlike a request for an independent trial for correction, it shall be deemed that the decision of an invalidation trial becomes final and conclusive together with a decision on the objection,

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below and the records, if the patent invention of this case (patent No. 18261) was manufactured by using the aforementioned 0-year panel for correction and its name was registered under the name of the Patent Tribunal (patent No. 18261; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") as 30-year Patent Tribunal for correction and 10-year Patent Trial and Appeal No. 10-year Patent Trial and Appeal No. 20-year Patent Trial and Appeal No. 8 (patent No. 20-year Patent Tribunal's decision to revoke the patent application No. 1). Since the examiner's decision to revoke the patent application No. 20-year panel for correction and the examiner's decision to revoke the patent application No. 30-year Patent Tribunal's decision to dismiss the patent application of this case (patent No. 20-year Patent Tribunal's decision to revoke the patent application of this case, the examiner's decision to revoke the patent application No. 1 to the plaintiff on January 15, 20000.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the correction of this case is inappropriate after it rendered an opportunity to present its opinion on the correction to the plaintiff as a result of a re-examination of the case for objection, and it cannot be said that there is any error in the judgment below's explanation of the ground for appeal. However, the court below's conclusion that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the correction in the procedure for objection as otherwise alleged in the ground for appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below determined that the nonobviousness of the patented invention of this case, which was corrected for correction, is not recognized even in the patented invention of this case with wide range of claims, unless the patented invention of this case is non-obviousness, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the determination of inventive step or incomplete hearing, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)