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

작성일20-02-04 10:29

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.
후원로펌 뉴스레터 목록
번호 제목 날짜
2538 [법무법인(유) 화우] 자동차 사이버보안 관리체계 의무화 2024-03-04
2537 [법무법인(유) 화우] 재단법인 케이스포츠와 출연기업들 간 채무부존재확인(본소), 부당이득반환청구(반소)의 소 20건 승소 2024-03-04
2536 [법무법인(유) 화우] 메타버스에서의 저작물 이용 및 저작권 침해 2024-03-04
2535 [법무법인(유한) 대륙아주] Weekly_Legislative_Report_Week_of_February_19_to_February_23_2024 2024-03-04
2534 [법무법인(유한) 대륙아주] PB Report - 2024년 2월호 2024-03-04
2533 [법무법인(유한) 대륙아주] 물류시설법 이슈리포트 - 물류시설의 개발 및 운영에 관한 법률 개정내용 및 효과 2024-03-04
2532 [법무법인(유한) 대륙아주] 비트코인 현물 ETF 관련 이슈리포트 - 비트코인 현물 ETF 출시에 따른 규제동향과 전망 2024-03-04
2531 [법무법인(유) 광장] 韓国の最新知財情報 - 2024年2月 첨부파일 2024-03-04
2530 [SHIN & KIM] How Korean auto and battery joint ventures must deal with worrisome IRA, FEOC regulations and U.S. election risk 2024-02-28
2529 [SHIN & KIM] 기업 밸류업 프로그램의 준비 – 2. 기업 밸류업 지원방안 1차 발표 2024-02-28
2528 [SHIN & KIM] 안전관리계획의 일부 누락을 이유로 부과된 건설기술진흥법상 벌점부과처분에 대한 취소소송에서, 부실공사 발생의 우려가 있다고 볼 수 없다는 이유로 제1심에서 처분을 취소하는 2024-02-28
2527 [SHIN & KIM] 지배력 상실을 이유로 공정위로부터 계열 제외 판단을 받은 사례 2024-02-28
2526 [SHIN & KIM] 우려스러운 IRA, FEOC 규정 및 미국 대선 RISK에 대응해야 하는 한국 자동차와 배터리 합작회사들 2024-02-28
2525 [SHIN & KIM] 2024년 지방세관계법령 개정 2024-02-28
2524 [SHIN & KIM] 미국 국무부 · 재무부 · 상무부, 러시아의 우크라이나 침공 2주기 및 알렉세이 나발니 사망에 대응한 대규모 신규 경제제재 및 수출통제 조치 발표 2024-02-28
게시물 검색

사단법인 인하우스카운슬포럼 In-House Counsel Forum

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

E-mail : reps@ihcf.co.kr

Copyright(C) IHCF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

모바일 버전으로 보기