beta
Text
All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a patentee who filed an application for a patent invention “incidented device” (registration number D; hereinafter “patent invention of this case”) on the date C and received the registration thereof on the date E.
B. The Plaintiff is a design right registered by filing an application for “registered design of this case” as follows.
1) The filing date of an application: F/Registration number: G / H 2) goods: The description of the design and the main points of creation: The material is concrete and metal, and the blicket is used to fix the blicker and blicker by using the home page formed on the upper side and the blick, and to support the blicker’s shape used to support the blicker by fixing the blicker and the blicker through the blicket.
4) Form and shape: Attached Form;
2. The design of this case is the same as the registered design drawing.
(c)
Defendant
1. The Defendant’s products are being sold in the form of molds in the list (hereinafter “Defendant’s products”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff, as to the infringement of a patent right, manufactured and sold the Defendant’s product belonging to the scope of the patent right, and infringed the Plaintiff’s patent right on the patent invention of this case.
The argument is asserted.
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 5 and 6, there is no dispute between the parties, or the defendant filed a petition for a trial on invalidation of a patent on August 30, 2019, and the Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered a trial decision invalidating the patent registration as a trial decision on January 16, 2020, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the trial decision, but the decision maintained by the above trial decision on August 13, 2020 became final and conclusive and conclusive on August 29, 2020.
Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim for patent infringement based on the premise that the plaintiff is a patent holder is more effective.