2010 Gohap6779 Revocation of Disposition of extending the period for the protection of new technology

A Stock Company

The Minister of Knowledge Economy

May 26, 2010

July 1, 2010

1. The Defendant’s disposition of extending the protection period for new electric technology against Company B on December 30, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 4, 2005, the Defendant rendered a disposition to designate new technology as to the following technologies (hereinafter referred to as “instant technology”) as requested by Company B (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) pursuant to the Electric Technology Management Act:

[Attachment]

C

Designation Number:D

0. New technology developer: Details and scope of Nonparty Company0’s new technology developer

- Tultiosis dives diversives dives dives dives dives dives dives dives

- New technology protection period: 5 years from the date of designation and public notice

B. The Defendant received an application for the extension of the protection period from the non-party company at the time of the expiration of the new technology protection period for the instant technology. On September 18, 2009, the Defendant publicly announced the contents of the said application on September 16, 2009, and sought opinions from interested parties, including the Plaintiff engaging in manufacturing and sales business, such as lightning prevention devices, etc. on December 16, 2009, and issued a disposition to extend the new technology protection period for three years from January 4, 2010 to January 3, 2013 pursuant to the provisions of Article 6-2 of the Electric Technology Management Act and Article 7-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

With respect to the plaintiff's seeking revocation of the disposition of this case by the lawsuit of this case, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not have the standing to sue to seek revocation of the disposition of this case as a third party, not the other party

On the other hand, even if a third party is not the direct party to an administrative disposition, if the legal interest protected by the administrative disposition is infringed by the law, it is entitled to be judged by the propriety of the administrative action. The legal interest refers to the case where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the laws and regulations on the ground of the disposition in question and the relevant laws and regulations. According to Article 6-2(3) of the Electric Technology Management Act and Articles 7-6(5) and 7-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Electric Technology Management Act, when the defendant receives an application for the extension of the new technology protection period, he shall publicly announce the main contents of the new technology for at least 30 days and hear the opinions of interested parties. In fact, the defendant shall hear the plaintiff's opinion with regard to the application for the extension of the new technology protection period for each technology in this case, and the plaintiff shall state his opinion that each technology in this case does not meet the requirements for the extension of the new technology protection period. According to Article 6-2(2) and (3) of the Electric Technology Management Act and Article 7-4 of the Enforcement Decree, it shall not be justified.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since each of the instant technologies did not meet the requirements for quality verification, which are the requirements for extension of new technology protection under Article 6-2(1) of the Electric Technology Management Act, Article 7-2, and Article 7-6(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the operational guidelines publicly notified by the Minister of Knowledge Economy, the instant disposition based on the premise that the extension requirements are met is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(i)the cause of the occurrence of the lightning and the general principle of the lightning;

(가) 뇌운(雷雲, 낙뢰를 발생하게 하는 구름)은 전하로 충전되어 있는데, 대체로 상단부는 양(+) 전하를 띤 얼음결정으로, 하단부는 음(-) 전하를 띤 물방울로 이루어져 있고, 정전기 유도현상에 의하여 뇌운 하단부에 가까운 대지(大地)는 양(+) 전하로 유도(誘導)되게 된다.

(B) A strong electric field (electric field, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e.s., e.s., e.s., e.s., e.s., e.s.s.) is formed when the size of cerebrby increases, and the distance between cerebrby and the site e.s.s., e.s.s.s., e.s.s.s.s.s. (i) flow from the atmosphere to the atmosphere (a.s., e.s.s., e.s.s.s.) is generated. Larmer’s e.s.s., e.s.s.s., e.s.s.s., e.s.s., e.s.s.s. and e.s.s.s.s.) is associated with light and sound from the site.

(C) Such a phenomenon has been repeated several times between the brain mic and the site until the electric field has been reduced to a certain level, and there is a huge size of brain (surge and a sudden flow of water) around the site surrounding the site where the lightning has occurred, causing a lot of damage.

(라) 이러한 낙뢰 피해를 예방하기 위하여 끝이 뾰족한 막대 형태의 피뢰침을 건물 위에 설치하게 되는데, 이는 뾰족한 부분에 많은 전하가 몰리고, 따라서 뇌운으로부터 발생한 전하의 흐름이 위 도전체로 쉽게 유도된다는 원리에 착안한 것이다. 뇌운으로부터 방출된 엄청난 규모의 음(-) 전하가 피뢰침으로 유도되고, 곧바로 피뢰침에 연결된 도선을 따라 그대로 대지에 흘러 들어감으로써 건물에 발생할 수 있는 낙뢰피해를 예방하는 것이 일반형 피뢰침(Franklin rod)의 원리이다.

(2) Details of the instant No. 1 Technology

(가) 쌍극자 공간전하 방전분산형 피뢰침인 이 사건 제1기술은 소외 회사가 제출한 신기술지정신청서에 따르면, 보호구역 내에 유도되는 전하를 지속적으로 천천히 분산시켜 뇌 방전의 발생이 불가능한 수준으로 전계를 완화시키는 CTS의 일종'으로서, 피뢰침 본체와 절연된 정전유도체를 설치함으로써 피뢰침과 정전유도체 사이에서 코로 나방전(기체 속 방전의 한 형태로서, 한쪽이나 양쪽의 전극이 뾰족한 모양일 때 그러한 극 부분의 전기장이 강해져 국소적인 방전현상이 일어나는 것을 말한다)을 효율적으로 유도하여 뇌운과 피뢰침 사이의 전기장의 세기를 감소시켜 직격뢰를 차단하는 것이 위 기술의 효과이다.

(B) There is a non-traditional lightning system different from the general lightning erosion: ① CTS method, which is a method of weakening the thym of electricity between brain and site surface to avoid the occurrence of the lightning itself, and ② EES method, which is a method of releasing the strings from ground bribery system before the occurrence of a large amount of lightning, prior to the occurrence of a higher amount of lightning, there is an EES method, which is a method of discharging the strings from the ground bribery system.

(다) 그 중 CTS 방식은 대지에 접지된 침 형상의 물체가 전기장 속 전하의 자연적 분산효과를 더 증대시킨다는 침전극방전(point discharge)에 기초하여, 더 효과적으로 침전극방전이 일어나도록 하기 위하여 뾰족한 부분이 많도록 다중의 이온화 침을 설치하는 방식이다. 침전극방전의 결과 피뢰침 보호지역 내의 전위상승을 억제시키고, 피뢰침의 상공에 침전극에서 이온화된 공기분자가 공간전하층을 형성하여 피뢰침의 보호대상 시설 상공에서 완충작용을 한다는 데에 기초를 두고 있다.

(D) However, the CTS lightning has been pointed out as a problem that the erode efficiency of the horse group is not so high as to significantly reduce the probability of the lightning, and the spatial transition layers are not capable of performing substantial functions by easily extinguishing it from the actual mine environment by rain, etc.

(E) E is a group consisting of mine facility experts in various countries around the world, and is a member of the main axis of IEC/TC81 (Special Committee on Light Dispatch Electronic Standards) that establishes international standards for mine equipment (IEC 61024-1. 62305, etc.). With respect to CTS lightning operations, the above lightning operations conflict with the requirements for the protection of the IEC mines, and accordingly, the use of the above lightning operations should be suspended as they are dangerous. In addition, F, etc., which is a group of mine facility experts in the U.S. do not recognize the performance of special lightning operations, including CTS methods.

(F) In addition, the U.S. Air Space(NASA) in the 1970s found that the CTS lightning is not likely to cause any harm to the lightning, and some space launchings installed CTS lightning lightnings at the space launchings and conducted tests at the other launchings without installing the said lightning subsidences. As a result of the tests, it confirmed that there was no difference in the frequency of the occurrence of the lightning.

(G) The results of the FA’s study of the U.S. aeronautical station (FA) showed that the LDR, a type of CTS, has no capacity to perform more than the existing lightning equipment, and there is a fact that the airport and stamp distribution have been installed in the airport, and that the general type of lightning has been installed. This fact was reported to the media, and the state has been wasted the budget.

(H) In fact, the instant technology was installed in G, 2005 in G, 2003, and 2004 in H, 2004, as I, 2004, and in J in 2007. Of the foregoing buildings, G and J were partly damaged the interior equipment of a building due to lightning accidents.

(i) On the other hand, CTS lightning operations in the era of electricity between the surrounding site and the thrings through the co-rode and the discharge, to suppress the occurrence of a Streaser of facilities subject to protection of a pair of stimule and prevent lightning from occurring at the facilities subject to protection. According to the K company's explanation, which is operating a CTS lightninging business in the United States, it is not possible to do so to the areas protected by the said lightninging, and there is a stimul and a stimuls coming from the trees, etc. coming from the trees, etc. adjacent to it.

(j) On the other hand, as seen earlier, the lightning erosion in the CTS method was the lightning erosion that was already studied in the 1970s at the U.S. Air Space (NASA) and the U.S. aeronautical station (FA), and was published at the School of Science (IE on March 2004 at the International Organization that developed major standards and research policies as the maximum technical organization for electrical and electronic engineering).

(k) The content of the performance verification test report of the Korea Electric Research Institute with respect to the instant technology No. 1 is as follows. D.C. island voltage refers to the voltage at the time when the opening occurs, and if the transfer voltage is low, it is easy to cause lightning, and if the voltage is higher, it is higher to reach the higher voltage. Thus, the performance as a lightning is superior to the above island voltage.

A person shall be appointed.

(3) The second technology of this case

(A) The second technology of this case, which is the carbon reservoir matrixr, serves as a part of the material matization of carbon as its principal source, and serves as a part of the site in which the lower part of the brush ionion ionion ionion ionion ionion ionion ionion ionion ionion ionion ionion ionumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumum.

(B) The content of the performance verification test report of the Korea Electric Research Institute for Technology No. 2 of the instant case is as follows. In this regard, as the voltage required by the earth is low, and the electric current is high, the performance of the earth is excellent due to the high voltages.

A person shall be appointed.

(B) After having registered the above technology with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (V date patent), the non-party company filed a complaint against the violation of the Patent Act against X and X, the representative director of which was using similar ingredients and manufacturing methods, but the above defendants were different from each other (in the case of non-party company: 45% of black (carbon), 30% of powder powder, 30% of powder powder, 2% of powder powder powder, 3% of powder powder powder, 3% of powder powder powder, 2% of powder powder, 3% of powder powder, 2% of powder powder, 3% of powder powder, 40% of others, 60% of graphite (carbon), cement 20%, 3% of powder powder, 17% of them, 20% of them, and 17% of sand, and 202 from around 20 years prior to the patent application of the non-party company. However, the non-party company was dismissed from the prosecutor's office as above.

(C) After all, on June 15, 2009, Y Co., Ltd. filed a petition for a trial to invalidate the Patent-Related W Inventions A with the Intellectual Property Tribunal under Article 42(4)1 of the Patent Act on the ground that the instant technology was not supported by a detailed explanation on April 1, 2010.

(D) In addition to the patent registration of the non-party company, the patent granted to ACD's shotble force on the AB date, and the patent granted to the disclosure of the AE date's high-radioactive shot seat contact devices and the installation method thereof were disclosed. However, the patent granted to AD's shot block among the above technologies was supplemented by the problems that fall short of the existing shot seat discharge level.

(E) The non-party company’s Rerves made by applying the instant 2 technology are traded from 600,000 to 880,000 won. The general earthals are traded from 3,300 to 14,000 won. The Y’s carbon bars are traded from 160,000 to 220,000 won.

(4) The third technology of this case

(A) “The third technology of this case” refers to a method of designing and constructing a light-line joint contact to lower the surface level and remove the fundamental cause of minz and west by dividing each of the above technologies into two different technologies. The purpose of this is to supplement the problems that arise when designing and constructing each of the above technologies by dividing the above technologies into two existing technologies.

(B) The form of the bribery Department’s KSC IEC61024-1, which is the KS standard, can be used in the same way as that of the bribery Department, but there are characteristics of the fact that there has been the decentralization effect, which is the characteristics of the instant 1 technology, and the reduction ferries also have the KSC IEC61024-1, etc.

(C) The criteria for the installation of the SPD are based on the KSC IEC60364 (Construction Electricity Equipment) and the KSC IEC61024-1, which are the standards of KS.

(D) The KFPA specifications and IEC standards of the U.S. are provided for the common contact technology at the same time, and its characteristics are to use carbon bars by the technology of this case under the technology of this case in lieu of the existing contact sealing.

[Reasons for Recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence 2, evidence 4 through 16, evidence 19 through 24, Eul evidence 1, 4 through 8, 12, 13, 15 through 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 6-2(1) of the Electric Technology Management Act provides that the Minister of Knowledge Economy may designate and publicly notify a new electric technology as a new electric technology at the request of a person who has developed or improved the electric technology that has been introduced domestically and has new, inventive step and field utility in the Republic of Korea. Paragraph (3) provides that the method and procedure for designating a new technology shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 7-2(1) through (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Electric Technology Management Act provides that the Minister of Knowledge Economy shall determine whether the technology applied for is a new electric technology through the examination procedure of the exclusive institution determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy with regard to whether the technology is a new electric technology. Article 6-2(5) provides that the detailed operational regulations on the standards and procedure for evaluating the technology necessary for the designation of a new electric technology shall be prescribed and publicly notified by the Minister of Knowledge Economy; Article 6(1) of the aforementioned Act provides that the new technology shall meet the requirements for designation of a new technology, on-site inspection and its effect; and (2) the method of operation of the new technology so notified by the Minister of the Minister of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy.

(2) Therefore, we examine whether each of the instant technologies satisfies the requirements of the aforementioned laws and regulations for the extension of a new technology protection period.

(A) First of all, the first technology of this case is similar to CTS method (CTS), which is the method of weakeninging the intensity of the electrical plant between the Bribery and the site surface so as to avoid the occurrence of the lightning itself, as the quality verification requirement for the extension of the new mine protection period, as to whether the contents of the first technology have been verified through the construction process, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts. ① The lightning erosion by the first technology of this case seems to be similar to CTS method (CTS), which is the method of preventing the occurrence of the lightning itself by weakeninging the intensity of the electrical plant between the Bribery and the site surface. Such CTS method is not so high as to reduce the likelihood of the lightning considerably, and the spatial transition floor has continuously been affected by the removal of the performance and effect of the building by the non-furine in the actual lightning environment, and there has been no other problems such as the installation of the lightning equipment and EF of the mine experts in this case.

(B) We examine whether the technical standard for the extension of the new technology protection period of the second technology of this case is recognized as excellent compared to the level of domestic and foreign technology. In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged as follows. (1) The non-party company which received the disposition of new technology registration of this case and completed the patent registration of this technology filed a complaint against the non-party company violating the Patent Act such as Y, etc. which produces carbon boms by similar means to it. However, the above non-party companyY, etc. was subject to a non-guilty disposition on the ground that the plaintiff had already produced carbon boms before the new technology was designated as the new technology. (2) After the above suspicion, Y et al. filed a patent invalidation trial against the non-party company. (3) The non-party company's patent becomes null and void in part of the second technology of this case of this case, and (4) the defendant extended the new technology protection period of this case, unlike the time of the designation of the new technology of this case, the patent application of this case is not only registered as to several kinds of carbon 2 and complementary technology.

(C) The third technology of this case

According to the above facts, except that the third technology of this case is used in the first and second technologies of this case, the third technology of this case, which combines the above technologies except the publicly known technologies, does not meet the requirements for extension of the protection period. Thus, since the first and second technologies of this case do not meet the requirements for extension of the protection period, the third technology of this case does not meet the requirements for extension of the protection period.

(3) Ultimately, each of the instant technologies is deemed to have failed to meet the requirements for extension of a new technology protection period under the above statutes, such as quality verification requirements and technological level requirements. The mere fact that each of the instant technologies has records of use, which are one of the requirements under the above statutes without satisfying such requirements, cannot be approved for extension of a new technology protection period, and thus, the instant disposition that approved extension of a protection period of each of the instant technologies is unlawful

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the extension of the protection period of this case is justified and accepted.

The presiding judge, deputy judge and assistant judge

Judges Jin-law

Judges Choi Young-hoon

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.