logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2017.11.29 2017허4792
권리범위확인(특)
Text

1. The trial decision rendered by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on June 20, 2017 with respect to a case No. 2132 shall revoke the part concerning claims 4,5.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) On July 20, 2016, the Defendant against the Plaintiff, the patentee, the Intellectual Property Tribunal, on the ground that the claim 4, 5, 13, and 14 of the instant patent invention are identical to the prior invention 1, 2 of the preceding invention 1 and the second invalidation of registration (2017Heo5818). The prior invention 1 is an effective measuring device of RH2010, published on September 17, 1996, and the prior invention 2 is a measuring device of HL5500 PC effect, acquired and used by the North Korean University on February 16, 1995.

As newness or non-obviousness is denied by virtue of the foregoing, the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right to claim 4, 5, 13, and 14 of the patented invention of this case, and the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right to claim 4, 5, 13, and 14 of the patented invention of this case.

On June 20, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal filed a petition for the trial to confirm the scope of rights (No. 2016Da2132) against which confirmation is sought. (2) On June 20, 2017, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial decision citing the aforementioned passive claim to the effect that the challenged invention does not fall under the scope of rights of the claim 13 and 14 of the instant patent invention, and that the challenged invention does not fall under the scope of rights of the instant patent invention, as it does not fall under the scope of rights, since the challenged invention is not identical or equal with the claims 4 and 5 of the instant patent invention.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the part concerning the claim 4 and 5 of the instant patent invention among the above trial decision.

B. The Plaintiff’s name of the patented invention of this case (Evidence 2 and 3) 1: The first day/application date/registration date/registration number: September 4, 2001; / February 3, 2004/ February 3, 2004; the technical task of the patented invention of this case, the outline of the invention of this case, No. 419,05, reduces the investment cost of equipment with a simple structure; and the neglect of the effect of sampling is its own body in the body of its inner organ.

arrow