후원로펌 뉴스레터

본문 바로가기

HOME > 후원로펌 현황 > 후원로펌 뉴스레터

후원로펌 현황

[법무법인 광장] New Supreme Court Decision Constrains Patentee’s Strategic Use of Correction Petition in Pending Patent Case

페이지 정보

작성자 관리자 작성일20-02-04 10:29 조회28회 댓글0건

본문


상단 이미지

New Supreme Court Decision Constrains
Patentee’s Strategic Use of Correction Petition in Pending Patent Case

On January 22, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled, en banc, that if a petition to correct a patent specification or drawings is granted after the conclusion of the appellate phase of a patent invalidation action, the decision granting such petition cannot be a ground for retrial under Article 451, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 8 of the Civil Procedure Act.  In doing so, the Court reversed all prior Supreme Court decisions that remanded the case for a retrial based on the same ground (Supreme Court En Banc Decision No. 2016Hu2522).
Supreme Court’s prior view: patent corrections may serve as a ground for retrial after conclusion of the appellate phase.
Regarding the question of whether a decision to correct a patent specification or drawings constitutes a ground for retrial under the Civil Procedure Act, the Supreme Court’s prior view was that for patent invalidation or infringement lawsuits, a final and conclusive decision granting the petition for patent correction would serve as a ground for retrial. Based on such Supreme Court precedents, the general practice was that where there is a final and conclusive decision to correct the subject patent, the Supreme Court would remand the invalidation or infringement case for a retrial.
Supreme Court’s en banc decision reverses the course and disallows patentee’s strategic use of correction petition as a way of obtaining a retrial in the appellate phase of a patent invalidation or infringement action.
The Supreme Court, however, recently reversed the course, ruling that patent correction granted after the conclusion of the appellate hearing in a patent invalidation case cannot serve as a ground for retrial of that invalidation case. The Supreme Court further held that the same legal principle should apply to scope confirmation and patent infringement cases, and reasoned that disputing the appellate decision simply based on the patent correction that has been granted after the conclusion of the appellate hearing when the patentee could have easily taken preemptive measures against the original invalidation claim by filing a request for correction earlier, would unduly delay dispute resolution.
This en banc ruling now prevents patentees from employing their old correction strategy and forces them to obtain the best possible corrections before the conclusion of the appellate hearing
Before this en banc decision, even if the patentee did not prevail in a patent invalidation lawsuit, the patentee had an option of stopping the patent from being invalidated by filing a petition for patent correction while the invalidation case is pending and later obtaining a correction decision, even after the appellate decision affirming invalidation of the patent.

However, with this en banc decision, the Supreme Court now denies patent corrections granted after the conclusion of the appellate hearing from qualifying as a ground for retrial, preventing patentees from employing the old correction strategy and now forcing them to obtain the best possible corrections before the conclusion of the appellate hearing.

The Lee & Ko IP Practice Group is one of the largest and most prominent IP practices in Korea and is recognized by clients and adversaries alike as one of the strongest practices of its kind. From representing clients in Korea’s largest patent infringement cases and invalidity trials to helping clients evaluate patent invalidity, the Lee & Ko IP Practice Group has deep experience in a wide range of industries and remains the top choice in Korea and around the world.
─ CONTACT ─
Un Ho KIM
Un Ho KIM
T: +82.2.772.4695
E: unho.kim
@leeko.com
Profile>
Vera Eun Woo LEE
Tae H. KIM
T: +82.2.6386.6656
E: taehyung.kim
@leeko.com
Profile>
For more information pertaining to this newsletter, please contact the attorneys identified on the right.
The Lee&Ko Legal Newsletter is provided for general information purposes only and should not be considered as the rendering of legal advice for any specific matter. If you no longer wish to receive our newsletter service, please click here or reply to this email stating UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. The contects and opinions expressed in the Lee&Ko Legal Newsletter are protected by law against any unauthorized use.

댓글목록

등록된 댓글이 없습니다.

후원로펌 뉴스레터 목록
번호 제목 글쓴이 날짜 조회
330 [부스러기사랑나눔회] KB국민은행·KB증권 '코로나19' 확산 방지 예방용품 긴급지원 관리자 2020-02-25 1
329 [법무법인 광장] Implementation of Pre-approval System for Cross-border M&A for Companies with National Core Technology 관리자 2020-02-24 3
328 [법무법인 광장] 국가핵심기술 보유 기업의 해외 인수·합병 등에 관한 사전 승인 제도 도입 관리자 2020-02-21 19
327 [White & Case] Suspending contractual performance in response to the coronavirus outbreak 첨부파일관련링크 관리자 2020-02-20 30
326 [법무법인 광장] 고위험 금융상품 판매 제한 시행을 위한 자본시장법 하위규정 개정안 발표 관리자 2020-02-19 22
325 [법무법인 광장] 코로나19 상황 하에서의 현지법인 운영 관련 유의사항(1) 관리자 2020-02-14 41
324 [부스러기사랑나눔회] 씽씽~즐겨라! 현동 익사이팅 캠프! 관리자 2020-02-11 32
323 [법무법인 광장] 韓国大法院が判例変更「事実審弁論終結後の訂正審決は特許訴訟の再審事由とならない」 관리자 2020-02-10 32
322 [법무법인 광장] 대법원, 약정 근로시간에 대한 고정수당의 시간급 통상임금 환산 방법을 변경하다 관리자 2020-02-06 40
321 [법무법인 광장] 볼커룰 개정 규정의 주요 내용 관리자 2020-02-06 31
열람중 [법무법인 광장] New Supreme Court Decision Constrains Patentee’s Strategic Use of Correction Petition in Pending Patent Case 관리자 2020-02-04 29
319 [법무법인 광장] 상장회사 사외이사의 자격요건 강화 및 주주 권리 확대를 위한 개정 상법 시행령 시행 관리자 2020-01-29 73
318 [법무법인 광장] 사실심 변론종결 후 이루어진 정정심결은 특허소송에서 더 이상 재심사유로 보지 않음 (대법원 전원합의체 판결 : 기존 대법원 판결 변경) 관리자 2020-01-29 40
317 [부스러기사랑나눔회] 롯데제과의 달콤하고 소중한 과자 나눔 관리자 2020-01-29 42
316 [법무법인 광장] 대법원, 무기계약직에 기존 정규직의 근로조건 그대로 적용된다 관리자 2020-01-20 43
게시물 검색

인하우스카운슬포럼 In-House Counsel Forum

주소:서울시 강남구 테헤란로 625, 17층 | 고유번호 : 107-82-14795 | 대표자 : 양재선

E-mail : ihcf_staff@naver.com

Copyright(C) IHCF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

모바일 버전으로 보기