U company requested an injunction against the Rural Development Administration (“RDA”) alleging patent infringement over a capsule-type device, which diagnoses disease of cattle by collecting their bio-data. RDA, which was running a project to disseminate a diagnostic system for livestock disease across the country by entering into a licensing agreement with D company, requested a defensive confirmation trial for the scope of rights. Kim & Chang, which represented U company, asserted that the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (“IPTAB”) should deny the request for confirmation trial because there would no benefit of confirmation. Here, IPTAB found no benefit of confirmation on the grounds that RDA is not an entity that directly implements the challenged invention because it indirectly implements the livestock management system through a licensing agreement. Although precedent cases of the Supreme Court indicate that a benefit of confirmation is only recognized when a challenged invention is directly implemented, AIP argued against the IPTAB decision at the Patent Court. As a result, the Patent Court decided that a benefit of confirmation should be recognized even in the case of indirect implementation. Currently, U company appealed the case to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court affirms the Patent Court’s judgment, this will be the first case that recognizes benefit of confirmation when an indirect implementer is involved. 

(the Patent Court Case No. 2019Heo6020 ruling on May 29, 2020)