무료 바카라 게임

1. Case summary

1) Who did Barun Law represent?

Attorneys Kim Jae-ho, Jung Young-hun and Yoo Yeon represented Defendant B.

2) Factual background

Plaintiff A is a person who holds the patent applied on July 3, 2012 and registered on February 26, 2014 (the “Patent”). Defendant B is a person who provides users with authentication service for credit card payment by using its own server.

Plaintiff A filed for patent infringement injunction against Defendant B, asserting that Defendant B infringed the Patent (literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents).


2. Issues

The issues in this case were regarding the interpretation of the description of the 무료 바카라 게임 and whether the payment proxy request terminal (seller’s terminal), which is one of the components of the patented invention in this case, can be regarded as the same as the purchaser's PC in which the payment program was installed.


3. Our argument and role

In considering the infringement of a patent, the interpretation of the scope of claims and the scope of the patent should be first dealt with. Representing the defendant we argued, “The plaintiff has confused the illegal limited interpretation of 무료 바카라 게임 and the interpretation of 무료 바카라 게임, which is made by taking account of the explanation of an invention or drawings, and consequently, has accused the defendant of infringement of the Patent on the basis of the wrong interpretation of 무료 바카라 게임. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim for infringement has no merits.”


4. Decision

The Patent Court (the 4^th Civil Division) accepted our argument and determined that the plaintiff alleged the infringement of the Patent by the defendant on the basis of the interpretation of wrong 무료 바카라 게임. The court dismissed all the claims made by the plaintiff (Patent Court 2021Na1374).


ㅁ Attorneys in carge:  Kim Jae-ho, Jung Young-hun and Yoo Yeon