In a case where a person who has served as representative director of a company was prosecuted for infringing another person's registered petition, and is under criminal trial, whether such person constitutes an interested person seeking confirmation of the scope of right of the registered petition (affirmative)

When a claimant holds office as a representative director of the non-party company, if he/she was indicted for violating the Utility Model Act because he/she infringed on the right to the registered petition of this case, and such criminal trial is currently pending, he/she constitutes an interested person seeking confirmation of the scope

Article 25 (3) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of January 13, 1990)

[Defendant-Appellant] Kim Hong-chul (Attorney Park Byung-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Patent Attorney Jinn Byung-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 88 No. 88 dated March 8, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the First Ground:

As determined by the court below, when a claimant holds office as a representative director of the non-party international Kolon corporation, he was indicted for violating the right to the registered petition of this case, and if the criminal trial is currently in progress, it constitutes an interested party seeking the confirmation of the scope of the right of this case. Thus, the original decision to the same effect is just and there is no error of law as pointed out,

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that (a) the device is identical to the publicly known device prior to the filing of the petition in this case and its technical composition, as well as the inventive step-oriented technology composition, which appears in the device in this case, and eventually does not fall under the scope of the right to the device in this case. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete deliberation as pointed out.

In addition, the lower court determined that (a) the device falls under the technical composition of the known art without comparing the 1 device of evidence Nos. 3-1 and (a) with the inhaled blockr device in the device Nos. 3-1 and (a), and does not affect the result of the trial

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 Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)