메이저 바카라 사이트

1. Case summary and issues
 
The claims of the patent held by the plaintiff were composed of the three steps of 1, 2 and 3. The defendant 2 and the defendant 3 practiced the step 1 and the step 2, respectively. The defendant practiced the step 3 on deliverables that were made by the defendants 2 and 3 practicing the steps 1 and 2. Against this backdrop, the issues were (i) whether the defendants 1, 2 and 3 infringed the patent held by the plaintiff and (ii) whether the patent could be invalidated due to the incompleteness of statements and a defect in novelty.


2. Our rule and the court’s judgment

Representing the plaintiff, we aggressively made and substantiated the case that at least the defendants 2 and 3 should be liable for the patent infringement on the basis of the legal theory regarding the constitution of a patent infringement by multiple people, which has recently received lots of attention in the practice field of patent infringement litigation although none of the defendants 1, 2 or 3 practiced all of the steps 1, 2 and 3 of the claim 1. The patent court accepted our case and found that the defendants 2 and 3 were liable for damages (Patent Court’s Decision 2019Na2077 dated February 10, 2022). The defendant 3 filed for a trial to invalidate the patent held by the plaintiff, and obtained the decision of invalidation. Representing the plaintiff, we filed a lawsuit to cancel the decision. We successfully obtained the court’s judgement that the patent held by the plaintiff did not have any reason for invalidation (Patent Court’s Decisions 2020heo5269 and 5436 dated February 10, 2022).


3. Implication

The plaintiff, who filed the lawsuit for the infringement of a patent, could attempt to prove the “infringement by equivalents” or the “infringement of a patent right by multiple entities”, if it was difficult to prove the “literal infringement”. In particular, it is not easy to prove that elements constituting the former has been met. Overcoming the difficulties, we had the defendants 2 and 3 be liable for damages caused by the infringement of the patent. The patent court dealing with the trial for the cancellation of the decision confirmed that it would not easily find a party’s allegation of the invalidity of a patent right that is allegedly resulted from the incompleteness of the statement, which is made by simply finding fault with certain expressions in the statement of an invention, in which novelty is recognized.


ㅁ Attorneys in charge: Lee Eung-메이저 바카라 사이트 and Jung Young-hun