logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 특허법원 2020.11.06 2019허4185
권리범위확인(특)
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The title of the invention of the instant patent invention (Evidence A2 and 3) 1: C2) filing date/registration date/registration number: D/E/F3) patentee: Plaintiff 4: The claim and major drawings of the instant patent invention (attached Form 1)

(hereinafter) Claim 2 of the instant patent invention is referred to as “instant Claim 2”). B.

The description and drawings (attached Form 2) as a specific "G" being conducted by the defendant of the invention subject to confirmation are as stated in the "Invention subject to confirmation" (amended by April 18, 2019).

C. Prior inventions (Evidence 6) No. 10-2004-005508 of the Patent Gazette published on June 26, 2004, regarding the “security loan and fund service system.”

In the instant lawsuit, there was no issue as to whether the invention in question is a free-to-work technology, and as a result, there was no specific preparation for the invention in question and the prior invention. Therefore, the entry of the contents of the prior invention is omitted.

1) On December 6, 2018, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a passive trial to confirm the scope of right by asserting that “the invention subject to confirmation differs from the elements of the instant Claim No. 2, and constitutes an invention easily made from prior inventions, and thus falls under the scope of the right of the instant Claim No. 2, and thus does not fall under the scope of the right of the instant Claim No. 2.” On April 18, 2019, the Defendant submitted an explanatory statement and drawings that amended the instant invention as described in [Attachment 2] (hereinafter “instant amendment”).

(2) The Patent Tribunal’s amendment to the instant case on April 30, 2019 is lawful, and the invention subject to confirmation is specified to the extent that it can be compared to the instant Claim 2 invention, and the instant petition for trial is lawful as it is identical to the invention conducted by the Defendant.

The instant Claim 2 pertains to the method of mediating a contract for a real estate security loan.

arrow