[Criminal & Patent] Obtained a "no charges" decision from the prosecution in a defamation case representing a client, a component manufacturer.

Law firm Veat (hereinafter referred to as "Veat") represented a client operating a parts manufacturing company and obtained a non-indictment decision from the prosecution in a case where the client was sued for defamation by K Company, established by a retired employee.

​1. Overview of the Case

​K Company is a company established by a retired employee A from the client company. A had illegally leaked the parts manufacturing technology, which the client company was protecting as a trade secret, and filed a patent application upon retirement. In addition to this, K Company used the obtained patent rights to sue the client company for patent infringement, but Law firm Veat defended the client and obtained a non-indictment decision.

​The client filed a lawsuit (Moineulwon) seeking to invalidate the patent registration of K Company to clarify the injustice of the case. Law firm Veat represented the client and achieved the result of the K Company's patent being canceled. K Company’s CEO A, harboring resentment over the patent cancellation, sued the client company's CEO for defamation.

​2. Judgment on Patent Infringement

​Law firm Veat, in the case where K Company sued the client company for patent infringement, argued that ▲ drawings related to the technology in question existed from three years before K Company registered the patent ▲ the technology patented was identical to the client company’s technology, clarifying that the client company had already been using the technology long before K Company filed the patent. This led to a non-indictment decision.

​Also, in the subsequent patent invalidation lawsuit, Law firm Veat argued that ▲ K Company’s CEO had free access to the in-house production line while employed by the client company ▲ K Company did not conduct any experiments when filing the patent application ▲ despite having no experience handling related technology, the development of the production system was completed in four months. This revealed that K Company’s patent registration was by an unauthorized party.

​3. Judgment on Defamation

​K Company’s CEO A, harboring resentment over successive defeats and patent registration cancellation, sued the client company's CEO and key witnesses for defamation and false testimony. K Company claimed that the client company’s CEO and key witnesses ▲ falsely stated that they used the parts manufacturing technology corresponding to the patent in question, despite the fact that they had not used it ▲ falsely stated that drawings existed long ago, despite the technology not existing before K Company’s patent registration ▲ falsely stated that the technology used by the client company was an older method, despite being the same as the patented method, constituted defamation.

​In response, Law firm Veat argued that ▲ it is clear that the client company was the developer of the parts manufacturing technology corresponding to the patent in question ▲ K Company is asserting details of the original technology but failing to submit objective evidence ▲ the Supreme Court’s patent cancellation decision ▲ and by comprehensively examining the testimony of witnesses, K Company’s claim did not have sufficient evidence.

​4. Conclusion

​The Wonju Branch of the Chuncheon District Prosecutor's Office, on December 24, 2019, accepted all the facts argued by Law firm Veat and issued a declaration of no charges against the client company.

​It is very difficult to prove a case of illegal leakage of trade secrets and filing a patent application. Law firm Veat, composed of engineers and lawyers, thoroughly analyzed the client's technology, actively secured forensic and other evidence, and clearly demonstrated that the client had been robbed of a patent.

​Patent disputes often lead to continued disputes even after the registration of patent rights, which can result in significant costs and time. Through this case, Law firm Veat once again confirmed that in cases of trade secrets and patents, knowledge of the technology in question, experience handling various technology-related cases, and a legal understanding are necessary for smooth litigation, requiring active responses.

​Thank you.

Law firm Veat