Whether a patentee may demand the exclusion of infringement of another person's patent where he/she manufactures goods under the name of another company.

After filing for registration of a patent, even if an applicant is employed by an enterprise established by a person other than his/her applicant for a patent and sells goods of the patent, the business inspection of the sentence may not be said to be the case where he/she provides labor by being employed by another applicant.

Article 17 of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da2822 delivered on February 8, 1977 (Daad 11446, Supreme Court Decision 25 ① citizen80, Decision 1749, Court Gazette 556,924)

Applicant

Respondent

Busan District Court (69Ka4189)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The respondent shall not manufacture, sell, distribute the maternitys of the pedestrian practice district registered in accordance with Article 5363 as the patent office registration of each drawing of the attached Form.

The respondent's possession of the foregoing counterfeit and the machinery and appliances used in the manufacture shall be released and ordered to the head of the month belonging to the Busan District Court which the applicant delegates to the applicant.

Appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure that the respondent does not manufacture, sell, and distribute the relief items mentioned above.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The applicant's application is dismissed.

On February 24, 1968, an applicant filed an application for registration of a utility model for a pedestrian practice room for concurrent use by young children in the purport of the application and made and sold the pedestrian practice tool belonging to the right after acquiring the utility model right on November 30, 1968, and the respondent also made and sold it. However, there is no dispute between the parties, the applicant's testimony outside the court below's 1-7, 4-1, 6-1, 4-1, 8-1, 8-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 3-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 3-1, 5-1, 5-1, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1, 3-1, 5-1, 4-1, 3-1, 4-1, 4-1, 3-1, 4-1, 3-1, 4-1, 3-1, 3 of the applicant's testimony or 4-1, and 4-1, 3-1, 2.

However, the respondent argues that first, the applicant's goods manufactured and sold after being registered with the applicant's application are publicly known at home and abroad before the application is filed, and there is no newness, and the time when the respondent manufactured and sold the pedestrian exercise equipment in the issue of this case from September 19, 1968, the time when the respondent manufactured and sold the pedestrian exercise equipment in this case is the time before the applicant's application is registered with the applicant's application, so the so-called prior user's license was held. However,

Then, the respondent's manufacture and sale of the pedestrian practice implements at issue is not independent of the respondent, but only the respondent is an employee of the non-applicant and non-applicant 5. Thus, the respondent's claim for provisional disposition of this case is asserted to be improper. Accordingly, according to the statement of the evidence 9,10, the respondent's non-applicant's 5 non-applicant who is sentenced to a dispute over the establishment of the health zone, and the trade name and the business inspection of the issue are carried out, but it is recognized that the respondent has manufactured and sold the pedestrian practice implements at issue and bears public charges accordingly, but it is far more than the fact that the respondent has registered the applicant's right to the issue, and therefore, the respondent cannot be said to simply provide labor after being employed by the non-applicant. The testimony of the non-applicant 5, the non-applicant 1, as mentioned above, is not believed to be a member, and there is no evidence on this point.

Therefore, the respondent's assertion on this point is also groundless.

Therefore, the applicant's application for provisional disposition of this case is the vindication of the right to preserve and there is a need to preserve the application in light of the facts and vindication of recognition. Accordingly, the original judgment is reasonable, and the respondent's appeal against this is groundless. Therefore, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act and it is decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 89 and 95 of the same Act as to the burden of appeal costs.

Judges Saples (Presiding Judge)