|Subject｜||[Patent] Patent Court Decision, 2016Heo7947, decided June 16, 2017|
Patent Court Decision, 2016Heo7947, decided June 16, 2017 (Window Frame Case)
It can be said that the invention was executed due to the state of recognition of technical composition of invention by unspecified number of people including the transferee with the item being transferred with the technical composition of the invention being easily understood by disassembly or analysis of this item by a person with ordinary skills within the field of technology that corresponds with this invention even when the technical composition of the invention cannot be simply understood from the exterior appearance as the same item as the invention was transferred for the purpose of sale or subcontracting unless there are special circumstances such as obligation of confidentiality for the transferee.
Meanwhile, the former Patent Act Article 29(1)(i) states that the practice of invention which was publicly known or executed has to be argued and proved by the party arguing for invalidation of patent but the existence of obligation for confidentiality must be argued and proven by the patent owner.
|Previous｜||[Patent] Patent Court Decision, 2017Heo1304, ...|
|Next｜||[Patent] Patent Court Decision, 2017Heo776, d...|