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
2628 [법무법인(유한) 대륙아주] PB Report - 2024년 3월호 발간 2024-03-27
2627 [법무법인(유한) 대륙아주] IP 이슈리포트 - 미국 특허청(USPTO) 2024. 2. 13.자 지침 2024-03-27
2626 [법무법인(유한) 대륙아주] 우크라이나 입법 동향 리포트 Vol.1 (2024. 3. 22.) 2024-03-27
2625 [법무법인(유한) 대륙아주] 주간입법동향_vol.157 2024-03-27
2624 [법무법인(유) 광장] EU 공급망 실사지침(EU CSDDD) 관련 최근 입법 동향 2024-03-27
2623 [법무법인(유한) 태평양] 공급망 실사지침의 EU 이사회 통과 2024-03-25
2622 [법무법인(유한) 태평양] 보건복지부, ‘지출보고서’ 공개 운영 지침 발표 및 시사점 2024-03-25
2621 [법무법인(유) 율촌] 돌관공사비 클레임 프로세스 및 준비사항 2024-03-25
2620 [법무법인(유) 율촌] 對미국 에너지, 친환경 전기차 산업 투자 관련 대선 리스크 관리 전략 2024-03-25
2619 [법무법인(유) 율촌][율촌 입법 위클리 2024-09호] 22대 총선 주요 정당 정책 비교 등 첨부파일 2024-03-25
2618 [법무법인(유) 화우] 개인정보보호, 24년 주요이슈 분석 2024-03-22
2617 [법무법인(유) 화우] 게임유저 소송특례 게임산업법 개정안 발의 2024-03-22
2616 [법무법인(유) 화우] EU 의회, AI 법 가결 2024-03-22
2615 [법무법인(유) 화우] 여유자금 투자 방법을 정한 자산유동화계획에 따르지 않고 체결된 계약이 사법상 무효임을 확인한 최초의 대법원 판결(대법원2023다259262) 2024-03-22
2614 [법무법인(유) 화우] 美 SEC, 기후공시 의무화 규정 확정 2024-03-22
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