메이저카지노사이트

(메이저카지노사이트 Court Judgment 2017Na2585, rendered on October 2, 2019)

Attorneys: Eungse Lee, Byoungil Kim, Younghoon Jeong and Minsun Shim

1. Case summary

1) Whom did 바카라 사이트 represent?

The defendant Kerix Precision: A company manufacturing and supplying earth anchor brackets (which are designed to support earth anchors installed on soil walls to avoid the destruction of soft ground) used for construction (the “Company”)

2) Case background

The plaintiff was a company holding a 메이저카지노사이트 (the “메이저카지노사이트”) regarding earth anchors with two side panels against each other that forming “a curved part with saw teeth.” The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Company for the prohibition of infringement of the 메이저카지노사이트 and damages, arguing that the Company’s earth anchor brackets with “the straight part of unevenness” (the “Company’s Product”) infringed the 메이저카지노사이트.

The district court decided that the Company’s Product infringed the 메이저카지노사이트, accepting the claims filed by the plaintiff. We represented the Company before the appeal court.


2. Issues

The major issues of this case were (i) whether the Company’s Product with “the straight part of unevenness” was involved with literal infringement or equivalent infringement, (ii) whether the unevenness of the Company’s Product could be deemed that it infringed the 메이저카지노사이트 even where the transformed and irregular curved part was formed at the construction site (the “Company’s Transformed Product”).


3. Barun Law’s Argument

Before the appeal court, Barun Law strongly argued:

(i) Since the unevenness of the side plates of the Company’s Product was not formed in a straight line, the Company’s Product was not involved with literal infringement of the 메이저카지노사이트; 

(ii) Since the problem-solving principle and the performance effect of the 메이저카지노사이트, which were confirmed from the 메이저카지노사이트 gazette of the 메이저카지노사이트 and the memos presented by the plaintiff to the Korean Intellectual Property Office (“KIPO”) were different from those of the Company’s Product, the Company’s Product and the 메이저카지노사이트 were not equivalent; and

(iii) The term, “curve” mentioned in the first claim would be interpreted that it meant a curve of constant curvature, but the Company’s Transformed Product had an irregular curve, and therefore, the Company’s Product was not involved with literal infringement or equivalent infringement of the 메이저카지노사이트.


4. Summary of the 메이저카지노사이트 Court’s decision

The district court recognized that the Company’s Product engaged in literal infringement of the 메이저카지노사이트 on the ground that the “curved part” mentioned in the claim filed by the plaintiff did not specify any degree of curvature and the Company’s Product and the Company’s Transformed Product had the same composition as the 메이저카지노사이트.

However, the appeal court determined:

① Since the saw-toothed side plate of the Company’s Product had a straight form, it did not engage in literal infringement;

② The 메이저카지노사이트 had overcome KIPO’s refusal by arguing that the 메이저카지노사이트 had had better effect than a side plate with a straight part, and in the light of this, it was reasonable to see that the “side plate with a straight part” was excluded from the scope of rights subject to the 메이저카지노사이트; and

③ The Company’s Transformed Product could not be seen that it contained identical or equivalent composition elements to the 메이저카지노사이트 because it was difficult for the court to deem that the Company’s Transformed Product materialized the technological meaning and the performance effect held by the “curved part” that were confirmed from the specifications of the 메이저카지노사이트.

As such, the appeal court determined that both the Company’s Product and the Company’s Transformed Product did not infringe the 메이저카지노사이트.


5. Barun Law’s role and the implications of the decision

During the two-year long trial period, Barun Law made effective and appropriate arguments about the interpretation of the scope of claim, equivalent infringement and free-to-work technology. At the same time, we actively tried to make substantiation through the inspection of the products. As a result, the appeal court identified the technological meaning and effect of 메이저카지노사이트 and determined the scope of claim by taking accounting of the description of the invention stated in the gazette of the 메이저카지노사이트. Then, the appeal court compared the 메이저카지노사이트 with the components of the Company’s Product and the Company’s Transformed Product. Finally, the appeal court determined that the Company had not infringed the 메이저카지노사이트. The decision has an implication in that it will be a reference decision with regard to various 메이저카지노사이트 infringement cases in which the interpretation of the scope of claims is an issue.

In addition, Barun Law helped the Company minimize damages for the claims, which the Company had admitted, by making appropriate arguments about the statutes of limitation and the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned. Barun Law successfully represented the Company and helped the Company significantly reduce the damage amount to KRW7,600,000 from KRW2,200,000,000.