[2] In a case where there are several effects of a selective invention, whether all the effects must be met (negative)

[3] Where the effects of a selective invention are several, whether the remaining effects other than those recognized as apparent in the determination of inventive step should also be considered (affirmative)

[4] In a case where the effect of a prior invention is necessary and sufficiently effective in light of the purpose of the invention, whether it can be recognized that the effect of the prior invention is apparent (negative)

[5] The case holding that the newness of selective invention is denied on the ground that, although there is no pharmacological data or specific experiment result about the pharmacological effect of selective invention in the specification of a prior invention, which is an invention for the use of medicine, the person with ordinary skill can sufficiently estimate the use of the selective invention

[2] Where the effects of a selective invention are several, the inventive step of the selective invention does not require a significant difference in all kinds of effects compared to the effects of the prior invention. It is sufficient for a technician to acknowledge that even some of the effects of the selective invention are more significant than those of the prior invention corresponding thereto. A technician ordinarily selects and implement selective invention instead of the prior invention if one of the several effects of the selective invention aims at the selective invention, and one of the other effects is unclear, and thus does not waive the implementation of the selective invention. As such, the feasibility of the selective invention is satisfied. One of the effects described in the specification alone is sufficient to grant a patent, if the utility of the selective invention is insufficient, it is unreasonable to grant a patent because it does not decrease in the value of the invention. However, if the description of the composition is unclear, it is difficult to grasp or make it impossible to implement the selective invention, and it is obvious that the invention satisfies the requirement of the prior invention's implementation of the selective invention as well as the requirement of the prior invention's detailed description or effect, and it is not clear that it is not clear enough to specify.

[3] Where the effects of a selective invention are several, if one of them is deemed significant compared to the effects of a prior invention, the inventive step of a selective invention can be affirmed. However, in order to evaluate the selective invention as having “special, obvious,” compared to the prior invention, the whole effects of the selective invention are considered in full. As such, if the remaining effects other than those recognized as significant are remarkably bad than those of the prior invention, the effects of the selective invention cannot be said to be special, and obvious compared to the prior invention, and the remaining effects should be limited to the effects of the prior invention at least that of the prior invention.

[4] In a case where the effect of a prior invention is necessary and sufficiently effective in light of the purpose of the invention, even if the effect of the selective invention is highly effective, the determination of inventive step cannot be accepted.

[5] The case holding that the newness of selective invention is denied on the ground that, although there is no pharmacological data or specific experiment result about the pharmacological effect of selective invention in the specification of a prior invention, which is an invention for the use of medicine, the person with ordinary skill can sufficiently predict the use of the selective invention

December 21, 2007

2. On June 28, 2006, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board) rendered a decision as to the cases Nos. 152, 2004Da152, 2004Da12893, 2005Da1253, 2006Da1077, 2006Da1097, 2006Da1097, and 2006Da1243, the part on the claims of the (patent registration number omitted) invention shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Lee Jong-il Co., Ltd., and all claims against the remaining defendants except the defendant Kim Jong-il Co., Ltd., Kim Jong-chul and El Han-chul Life Science are dismissed.

4. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal's decision on June 28, 2004Da152, 2004Da2893, 2005Da1257, 2006Da1097, 2006Da1097, and 2006Da1243, and the decision on August 29, 2006 as to the case is revoked.

A. Patent invention of this case

(a) The title of the invention: Meethyl-5 (3,2-C) Metropha (3,2-C) (2-chlorinated), the priority of the Metropha-5 (3,2-C) (2-chlorinated), the priority of the Metroan, the method and its pharmaceutical products;

(2) Date of application/registration date/registration number: February 16, 1988 ( February 17, 1987)/ August 5, 1996 (registration number omitted).

(3) Claims

1. Claim 1. Meethyl-5 (3, 2-C) Methical ethyl-5 (3, 2-C) Ethical tethical tethroid (2-chlorinated), and its salts permissible in terms of opical ethrology, grology, and pharmaceutical science.

[The Pream Claim shall be indicated in accordance with attached Form 1, and each claim shall be described in the manner of "paragraph 1 invention of this case", and "Methic ethyl-5 (Methic 4,5,67-tetradro (3, 2-C)-Net (2-chlorinated)-A ether" shall be referred to as "chemical formula (I), and chemical formula (I) opical luminous dyphergrel."

(b) Cited inventions;

The comparable Invention 1 pertains to the "Method of Manufacturing Ethical Eth (3,2-c) Ethiopil in the U.S. Patent Gazette No. 84-548 (Evidence A) and the publication published on July 16, 1985, which is the publication published on November 12, 1984," and the "Method of Manufacturing Ethiopil in the Eth (3,2-C) Ethiopil in the U.S. Patent Gazette No. 4,529,596 (Evidence A 6)" as the publication published on July 16, 1985. The Cited Invention 2 (No. 2) is a publication published on the "Ttratradddern, Vol 33" as the publication published on August 16, 1985, the Cited Invention 3 is a publication published on August 16, 1985, and Article 60-156 or 333 of Ethreti in the attached Form.

C. Details and summary of the instant trial decision

(1) The Plaintiff is the right holder of the patented invention of this case. However, with respect to the patented invention of this case, the Intellectual Property Tribunal, the non-party 204No. 152, Jan. 20, 2004; the defendant Eastdong Medicine Corporation No. 2004No. 2893, Dec. 30, 2004; the defendant Ilyang Drug Corporation No. 2005No. 513, Mar. 11, 2005; the defendant Bohdong Corporation No. 20051253, May 31, 2005; the defendant Bohdong Co., Ltd. 206 No. 10657, Apr. 28, 2006; the non-party 2005 No. 1261, Jun. 24, 2006; and the non-party 1 corporation No. 2065, May 15, 2006.

(2) The intervenors in each of the above cases claimed for adjudication is merely a ground for invalidation of the patented invention of this case, and the lack of originality or inventive step (claim 2 through 5, 8, and 11) was asserted as grounds for invalidation of the patented invention of this case. The Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal tried each of the above cases (No. 2004Da12893, No. 2005Da1207, No. 2006, No. 1097, No. 2006Da1243, No. 2006, No. 15206, No. 2006, No. 1242, Dec. 13, 2006). However, it is recognized that the designated invention of this case is not identical to the designated invention of this case, and the designated invention of this case is not identical to the designated invention of this case, and thus, it is recognized that the designated invention of this case is not identical to the designated invention of this case.

D. Correction of the patented invention of this case

On September 5, 2006, the Plaintiff corrected the “sult acid” of Nos. 3, 9, 13, 3, 17, 11, 19, and 16 from the specification of the instant patent invention as “sult hydrogen,” respectively, and corrected the “sult acid,” of No. 13, 11 from the specification as “sult hydrogen,” respectively. Paragraph 3 of the patent claim No. 3 of the “Meethyl-5 (4,5,6,7-tethro (3,2-C) - 3,2-chrodide cullodide (3,2-C) - 3, and 3-chrodide duline of the luminous nature of the instant patent invention as “sult acid-5 (4,5,6,7-teth (32-C), 208, 206, 207, referring to the Plaintiff’s request for a trial for correction trial by the Intellectual Property Tribunal.

[Evidence: No. 1 to 6, No. 70, No. 4(including each number)]

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant ELD Bioscience

(a) Fact-finding;

The fact that Defendant ELD Bio-science participated in the case of appeal No. 2004Da152 filed by Nonparty Daz. and received the decision of this case is recognized as above. According to the records, Defendant ELD Bio-science, which was pending in the lawsuit of this case, submitted the written withdrawal of appeal to the Intellectual Property Tribunal on April 19, 2007.

(b) Markets:

According to the above facts, the defendant ELD Bioscience lost its status as the intervenor in the case of appeal Nos. 2004 Party 152, 2004 Party 2893 (combined), 2005 Party 205 Party 2073 (Consolidated), 2006 Party 2097 (Consolidated), and 2006 Party 1243 (Consolidated) due to the withdrawal of the application for intervention, and accordingly, the plaintiff's lawsuit against defendant ELD Bioscience is unlawful.

3. The issues of the instant case and the relationship between parties

A. The issues of the instant case

The key issue of the instant case is (1) whether the completion of the instant inventions under paragraphs (1) and (3) is completed, (2) whether the nonobviousness or inventive step of the instant patent invention can be denied by the comparable inventions, and (3) whether the instant inventions under paragraphs (1) through (5) of Article 8 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same) are erroneous in the omission of entry under Article 8 (3) of the former

(b) arranging relations between the parties;

(1) The defendant's standing to be employed in the defendant Han-American medicine, ELB Bioscience, Modro, Modern medicine, dynamic medicine industry, Samsung Cralin medicine, Talin medicine, calcin medicine, and Calin medication

The plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Hanmi medicine, elabio science, heroto, froin medicine, dynamic medicine industry, Samsung Cirrheat medicine, Trheat medicine, Trheat medicine, Tropic medicine, Japanese medicine, and Culopic medicine at the trial stage of each trial decision of this case. Article 187 of the Patent Act provides that the defendant's standing to file a lawsuit for revocation of a trial decision on a patent invalidation trial as "applicant or respondent", and it seems that the intervenor is excluded from the defendant's standing.

However, Article 155 of the same Act provides that a party intervenor may continue a trial even after the request for the trial has been withdrawn by the original party (Paragraph 2), and where there are grounds for suspension or interruption of a trial proceeding against a party intervenor, such interruption or suspension also takes effect against the original party (Paragraph 5). In light of the fact that the Patent Act grants to the party intervenor the status corresponding to the party, unlike the supplementary intervenor, unlike the supplementary intervenor, the "applicant or respondent" under Article 187 of the Patent Act shall be construed as including the party intervenor.

(2) The plaintiff assistant participant

On June 26, 2007, Defendant Cho Jong-dae filed an application for intervention in the instant Claim against the remaining Defendants of this case to assist the Plaintiff, and against this, Defendant Lee Dong-dong filed an objection, and this court rendered a decision not to permit the application for intervention by the applicant for intervention on September 5, 2007. However, on September 11, 2007, the applicant for intervention filed an appeal with Supreme Court Decision 2007Du2007Du2 on September 14, 2007, on which the argument of this case was in progress, the appeal was dismissed on December 14, 2007, and became final and conclusive on the 21st day of the same month.

However, Article 75(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, provides, “In the case of this case, an intervenor may conduct litigation until a decision not to permit the intervention becomes final and conclusive even if an objection against his/her intervention has been raised,” and Article 75(2) of the same Act provides, “In the case of this case, a decision not to permit the intervention of an intervenor becomes final and conclusive and conclusive and conclusive, the litigation procedure shall be effective.” As such, since the parties have invoked in this case, the litigation conducted by an intervenor before the decision not to permit the intervention

(3) Settlement of the parties' submissions

In the lawsuit of this case, the defendants are divided into Defendant Cypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypy, Japanese medicine, balpypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypypum, Japanese medicine, Korean medicine, Japanese medicine, Japanese medicine, Japanese medicine, hexanpypypyp, Samsung Cypyp, Samsung Cypypump, Japanese medicine, Japanese medicine, Japanese medicine, Japanese chemical medicine, Samsung Cropypypypypypump, Japanese medicine, Japanese medicine, Japanese medicine industry (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A group”) and Defendant

4. Selective invention and the requirements for the patent;

A. The nature of the instant patent invention

A person shall be appointed.

<1> <1>>

A person shall be appointed.

< The Chemical Form Ⅰ. Ⅰ)>

The patented invention of this case is an invention related to the material itself, i.e., chlorate-5 (4,5,6,7-tetraddine (3,2-C)-Nitide 2-chlorate (2-C)-H ether’s priority in terms of its specifications and its pharmaceutical composition. However, comparable invention 1, which is described in the specification of the patented invention of this case as prior art, is related to the method of manufacturing thodideidine (3,2-C) in the above general formula (Ⅰ) in general formula, “Y” includes OH or RH 4 in terms of low-grade or dynadide dynadide 5 (in terms of dynadicium 3,2-C), or in terms of dynadide 5 (in terms of dynadicium dynadide 2) in terms of dynadide or dynadide dynadide dyer’s specifications.

따라서 다양한 치환기가 정의되어 있는 일반식(Ⅰ)에 포함되는 화합물의 종류는 많은데, 그 중 X가 2-Cl이고, Y가 OCH₃(즉 Y가 OR이고, R이 CH₃인 경우)일 경우 화학식(Ⅰ)의 화합물이 되며, 클로피도그렐도 화학식(Ⅰ)에 해당하는 화합물이다.

On the other hand, carbon sources can combine four sources of light with each other, and if four sources of light combine with one carbon are all different, they can be placed as carbon non-displacement, and as long as the arrangement of non-displacement is different from the same plane, they may have two dives, sound emer, sound emer, or optical vibration in the order of priority in all aspects of light (if the molecule is completely identical to one another, emercs in the direction of all sections of light), so it cannot be separated from the molecule method in the direction of all sections of light, i.e., equal in the order of priority in front of all sections of light vibration, and if the direction of light emercs and vibrations is reduced from the top of all sections of light.

화학식(Ⅰ)에 해당하는 ‘메틸α-5(4,5,6,7-테트라하이드로(3,2-C)티에노피리딜)(2-클로로페닐)-아세테이트’ 역시 1개의 비대칭 탄소(＊ 위치)를 갖는 물질이므로, 우선성 광학이성질체와 좌선성 광학이성질체가 존재하는 라세미체이고, 그 중 우선성 광학이성질체(위 ① 명명법에 의하면 S 에난티오머)가 이 사건 특허발명의 클로피도그렐과 동일한 화합물이다.

Therefore, Clopiggrels of the instant patent invention are one of the compounds of general formula (Ⅰ) that start from comparable inventions 1 to superior concepts. Thus, the instant patent invention constitutes so-called “alternative invention” in relation to comparable inventions 1.

(b) Requirements for patent for selective inventions;

(1) The significance of the selective invention

The selective invention refers to an invention whose elements are stated in the preceding or publicly known invention as a higher concept and whose subordinate concepts included in the above higher concept are all or part of the elements of the invention. In the form of a formal invention, only one of the inventions initiated prior or publicly known inventions is selected, and thus, there is no newness or problem of double patent between the preceding invention. However, since it is possible to grant a patent right to a beneficial invention that has not been specifically initiated in the preceding or publicly known invention with wide permission for commencement of the prior invention, thereby promoting industrial development and public interest by granting a patent right to the invention, it is possible to grant a patent to an selective invention that meets certain requirements, such as the United States and Japan, and Korea also acknowledges selective invention in review practice and precedents.

(2) Patentability of selective invention

The selective invention is entitled to obtain a patent only when the preceding invention does not specifically start the subordinate concepts comprising the selective invention, and the subordinate concepts included in the selective invention have a qualitative effect different from the effects of the preceding invention, or there is no qualitative difference (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Hu2740, Apr. 25, 2003; 2002Hu2846, Oct. 10, 2003; 2003Hu2089, Nov. 24, 2006; 2005Hu3338, Sept. 6, 2007).

The above requirement is a new one of the selective inventions, and the second requirement is a matter of inventive step of the selective invention. If the selective invention is specifically initiated in the prior invention, even though it is clearly stated in the specification of the prior invention or is considerably different or superior compared to the expected effects of ordinary technicians, a patent cannot be granted unless a separate use invention is established based on the qualitative effects. This is because it is merely a mere confirmation of the simple effect of the invention already known, and thus, it is not enough to contribute to industrial development.

5. Determination on requirements for entry in a specification

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(A) The specification of the instant patent invention does not clearly state the effects of each of the instant inventions in terms of the pharmacological and toxicity and toxicity of the instant inventions, but also states the outcome compared with the Lane of comparable inventions 1 as a quantitative data. Thus, the specification of the instant patent invention satisfies the requirements for specification of selective inventions.

(B) Each of the inventions described in paragraphs (3) through (5) of this case has excellent effects in terms of pharmacological activation and toxicity compared to the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body

(C) The cited invention 1 does not contain any indication of, and there is no awareness of, the chemical effects indicated in the specification of the instant patent invention, and thus, it is different from the effect of undermining the collection of serums by comparable inventions 1. Therefore, the degree of specification written as an selective invention is sufficient to clearly state the nature of effect.

(2) Summary of Defendant A Group’s assertion

(A) The specification of the instant patent invention contains the pharmacological effect and low toxicity effect of comparable inventions 1 in relation to the effect of the instant patent invention. However, from this perspective, the instant patent invention can only be seen as having the effect similar to the comparable inventions, and it cannot be seen as having clearly indicated the effect as an selective invention, on the ground that the instant patent invention only can be seen as having the effect similar to the comparable inventions.

(B) In the event that a compound falling under the specification No. 1 of comparable inventions 1 is produced, and the sediment is re-determined to form a sediable salt, and the sediment salt naturally has the sediability, acceptance, and non-Smokingability, and thus, the sediment effect of each of the instant Claims Nos. 2 through 5 is the same as that of comparable inventions 1. However, the specification of the instant patent invention only states the effect of the sediment in relation to the sediment effect, and does not state a significant effect in quantity, and thus does not meet the requirements for specification.

(C) The specification requirements as a selective invention must be met with all effects of the selective invention. As such, the specification of the instant patent invention must clearly state not only the pharmacological effects but also the apparentness of effects on both the pharmaceutical effects.

B. Arrangement of theories and precedents

(1) School theory

(A) a view demanding a quantitative entry (predetermined);

In the case of a selective invention with a quantitative effect compared to the prior invention, the selective inventor shall state the specific contents of the adverse effect in the specification, and in the case of an selective invention with a significant effect, at least one specific preparation result which can objectively recognize the superior effect compared to the prior invention, is the position that the selective inventor shall make it possible for an ordinary technician to know that the selective invention actually completed the invention at the time of the application for the selective invention, by presenting in the specification at least one specific preparation result which can objectively recognize the superior effect compared with the prior invention. This position is based on the argument that it is well known that the selective invention is remarkably superior to the prior invention, in particular, in the effect of the

(B) Opinion that is sufficient to have a static statement (sexually recorded)

In addition, the patent law does not strictly impose the obligation to commence prior art on the applicant, unlike the U.S. system in other countries such as the U.S., etc., so it is difficult for the inventor to understand whether the invention is a selective invention at the time of the application, and there are many cases where it is revealed in comparison with the prior invention at the time of determining the inventive step of the invention, and the issue of whether the invention is a selective invention is a selective invention is revealed in comparison with the prior invention at the later stage of determining the inventive step of the invention. However, it is argued that demanding the inventor to enter the obvious effect as selective invention at the time of the initial application in the detailed description of the invention in question is harsh.

(C) Weighting theory

An inventor of a prior invention and an inventor of a selective invention need to state in the specification of a selective invention a quantitative description if there are circumstances under which the selective invention is premised on the prior invention, but in other cases, it is filed by the technical idea of a general invention rather than the technical idea of the selective invention. Thus, an applicant is sufficient to state in the technical idea of the prior invention within the scope of the invention completed by himself/herself so that it can be understood and reproduced by a third party and shall not meet the requirements for specification necessary for the selective invention. In the case of the former, the inventor clearly recognizes and completed the invention clearly superiorly to the prior invention at the time of the application, and has materials that form the basis for such recognition, and therefore, he/she can state in the specification the selective invention in a quantitative value.

(2) Sales Order:

(A) Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu2740 Delivered on April 25, 2003

In determining the inventive step of a selective invention, "the so-called selective invention whose elements are stated in the prior or known invention as a superior concept and all or part of the subordinate concepts included in the above upper concept is not commenced specifically, and the preceding invention is entitled to a patent only if all subordinate concepts included in the selective invention have different effects from those of the preceding invention in quality or if there is no qualitative difference in quality, and if there is a significant difference in quantity, it is sufficient to clearly state the above effects compared to the preceding invention. In this case, the detailed description of the selective invention does not include any description about the comparative experiment material to clearly confirm the significance of its effects, and if the effect is doubtful, it shall not be specified in the comparative experiment material to specifically confirm the identity of its effects, and if it is doubtful, the effect shall be asserted and presented specifically by the method of submitting the detailed comparative experiment material after the date of the application."

(B) Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu338 Decided September 6, 2007

With respect to the lack of description of the selective invention, the so-called selective invention whose elements are stated in the prior or known invention as an upper concept and all or part of the subordinate concepts included in the above upper concept is not commenced specifically, the preceding invention is entitled to a patent only if the preceding invention has a different effect from the effects of the preceding invention in quality, or if all subordinate concepts included in the selective invention have a significant difference in quality, even if there is no qualitative difference, or if the detailed description of the selective invention does not include any comparative experiment data or comparison result that can clearly confirm that such effect is effective in the detailed description of the selective invention, it can be said that the ordinary skilled person satisfies the requirements for specification clearly and sufficiently to the extent that it can understand the effect as an selective invention."

C. Criteria for determination

(1) The nature and clarity of the effect in the selective invention

As seen earlier, since selective inventions grant a patent nature to finding special and significant effects that prior inventions did not have known, “effective” in selective inventions have the characteristic of “contestation” which constitutes the core of the invention unlike “effective” in general inventions. Therefore, even in the degree of description of effects, it is insufficient to state the effects of general inventions in general, and it is necessary to strictly state “a clear description of the composition” in general inventions. The inventor of selective inventions can be deemed to have completed an invention by having known “special and obvious effects” at the time of filing an application for an invention. However, if an “special and obvious effects” was revealed only by the ex post facto experiment, the outcome will be the result after completion of the complete invention, and whether the inventor has already recognized “special and obvious effects” at the time of filing an application, it is difficult to confirm through a detailed statement.

In addition, granting a patent to an invention is a consideration for disclosing the technical content of the invention to a third party, and the specification of the invention is meaningful as a technical document that serves as a technical disclosure. As such, a person with ordinary skill must be able to conduct the invention by reporting the detailed explanation of the invention and facilitating the invention. In the invention of a chemical substance, such as the patented invention in the instant case, the composition of a chemical substance is expressed in chemical formula, and the chemical formula is clearly stated in the specification, and there is no problem in the ordinary skill’s production of a chemical substance itself, barring any special circumstance where technical difficulty exists in reproducing the invention. However, a third party’s selection of a selective invention in lieu of a chemical substance commenced specifically in the prior invention is due to the “special and obvious effect” of the selective invention compared to the prior invention. Thus, if such effect is not clearly stated in the specification, a third party is unable to conduct the selective invention with prior inventions because it is impossible to know the value of the selective invention and therefore, it is impossible for a person with ordinary skill required by Article 8(3) of the former Patent Act.

As above, strictly demanding the description of effects in a selective invention is not included in the category or category (an invention of a product, an invention of a method of producing a product, or an invention of a method) of an invention under the Patent Act, but a reasonable interpretation is required to include strict effects in the detailed description of the invention in numerical limitation or medicinal use invention based on the discovery of value or use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Hu1550, Dec. 23, 2004; 2004Hu448, Apr. 15, 2005).

Therefore, whether a “special and obvious effect” is clearly stated in the specification of a selective invention should be determined as to whether it is clear to the extent that the selective invention has “special and obvious effect” compared only with the specification of the selective invention, without going through an experiment (in the case of an selective invention, such a test is equivalent to “the prior invention”) prepared by a person having ordinary skill in comparison with the prior invention (in the case of an selective invention, the materials that can recognize the prior invention, such as specification or literature) and the specification of the selective invention, compared with the prior invention. This is because the specification of the selective invention itself can confirm whether the inventor recognizes and completes the value of the selective invention, and whether the ordinary skill can recognize and implement the value of the selective invention through the specification.

If the effect of a selective invention is different from that of the prior invention (in a case where the effect of the selective invention is different from that of the prior invention), it is possible to recognize the “special and obvious effect” of the selective invention as well, and thus, it can be deemed that the requirements for the specification are satisfied. However, inasmuch as there are various issues as the effect of the quality can be seen to be clear to a certain extent, the following is examined.

(2) The need to record the result of preparation

The fact that the selective invention has a remarkable effect compared to the prior invention is easily known if the result in comparison with the prior invention is written in the specification of the selective invention, but it is sufficient for ordinary technicians to clearly understand the significance of the same quality through comparison with the specification of the prior invention even after the application for the selective invention is filed, and it is not necessary for the inventor of the selective invention to recognize the prior invention at the time of the application. Thus, the comparison between the selective invention and the prior invention does not necessarily need to be written in the specification of the selective invention. Accordingly, there is no need to treat different requirements for specification by distinguishing between the case where the inventor of the selective invention and the same person is written in the specification of the prior invention, or the case where the selective invention is written in the specification of the selective invention and the case where the selective invention is written in the specification of the selective invention are written in the prior invention.

In addition, even in cases where the preparation results of both inventions are stated, it is not necessary to state accurate values based on the results of the experiment, and even if there is a formula that there are approximately few times the effects compared to the prior inventions, it can be said that it is clear if it can recognize the identity of the selective invention in the effect.

(3) The need for quantitative description

Unlike the quantitative effects, a special distinction in the same quality effects is determined depending on whether the quantitative difference in the quantitative effects of the two inventions is significant, and the quantitative difference is eventually to be confirmed by comparing the quantitative values. Therefore, if the effects of selective inventions are written in a consistent manner and there is no quantitative entry, it is difficult to understand the quantitative difference from the effects of the prior invention. Therefore, in principle, a quantitative entry is required in the effects of the same quality.

B. The Supreme Court’s decisions as seen in paragraph (2) cannot be deemed to have determined that the selective invention and the prior invention’s “the result” are not necessary, or that the quantitative numerical value of the effects of the selective invention is not entirely required, and that the same is sufficient only with static statements at all times.

On the other hand, if the quantitative numerical value and test conditions for the effects of the selective invention are indicated in the specification of the selective invention, it can be seen as meeting the requirements for specification since it can be seen as meeting the requirements for specification, in comparison with the prior invention, and even if it is not recognized as considerably in comparison with the prior invention (e.g., the quantitative difference that can recognize the apparent effect of the effect, is about 10, and only the difference between 5). This is not a matter of whether the substantial nature of the effect can be recognized in the judgment of inventive step, but a matter of the requirements for specification.

On the other hand, even if the prior invention does not have a quantitative indication of its effect, it may be difficult to find out that the effect of the prior invention is significant in quantity compared to the specification of both inventions even if the effect of the prior invention is not indicated quantitatively. However, on the premise that a person of ordinary skill, who serves as a basis in the determination of inventive step, has the technical consciousness in the relevant technical field, can obtain all the data in the technical level at the time of application including the prior invention, and can make his/her knowledge in the technical field related to the subject of the prior invention as his/her own knowledge, and even if there is no quantitative indication in the specification itself, it shall be deemed that even if there is no quantitative indication in the specification of the prior invention, the quantitative numerical value can be limited from the effect of the prior invention. Therefore

However, in cases where only a emotional description that only enables people to know the content of the effect, or there is only an abstract expression that is “equitable” or “equitablely excellent” with regard to quantitative differences, it is difficult to see that the description of the effect is clear, because it is difficult to understand the difference between the selective invention and the effect of the prior invention by only the specification alone. However, if there are multiple objects of experiment, the description of the effect is clear, along with a emotional description, because it is indicated that the object of experiment can be specified in detail, the method and conditions of experiment, and the effect that the prior invention can solve the unexpected problem, so it can be predicted that the ordinary skilled person is remarkably superior to the effect of the prior invention by such description even if not indicated in the quantitative description.

(4) The description of the effect in the determination of non-obviousness and non-obviousness

The requirement of Article 8(3) of the former Patent Act is a requirement for the detailed description of the invention. If the effect of the selective invention falls under the lack of the description because it fails to meet the requirements prescribed in Article 8(3) of the same Act, the actual effect of the selective invention shall not be granted a patent without any special and significant consideration compared to the prior invention (the problem of the requirement of specification).

On the other hand, in determining whether an invention has a significant effect compared to a prior invention in the process of determining inventive step, it shall not be considered that the invention is not indicated in the specification or that it is not an ordinarily skilled person's expected effect from the specification (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu221, May 30, 1997). If the "special and obvious effect" in the selective invention is not indicated in the specification, if the "special and obvious effect" in the selective invention is not indicated in the specification, the effects proved by the ex post facto experiment cannot be recognized as the effects of the selective invention in determining inventive step (the issue of recognizing effects

Inasmuch as the “special and obvious effect” of a selective invention has the same character as the “satisfy” in the general invention as the basis granted by a patent to an selective invention, the effect of an selective invention is to be distinguished from that of the specification requirements. As such, in the invention of use of medicine, the pharmaceutical effect must be stated in the pharmacological effect in the selective invention of use (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu1550, Dec. 23, 2004). The effect of an selective invention is both the matter of the specification requirements and the recognition of the effect of the selective invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu2740, Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu338, Supreme Court Decision 2005).

On the other hand, in both issues, the standard of determination is whether a person with ordinary skills can recognize the “special and significant effect” of the selective invention, and the required level of statement should be the same.

(5) The effect of the selective invention is only effective.

(A) Issues

If there are more than one "special and significant effects" in relation to the selective invention compared to the prior invention, each effect must meet the requirements for the specification. According to the position to affirm it (hereinafter referred to as "self-esteem theory"), all effects must be clearly indicated, and even in any one effect, if the invention fails to meet the requirements for the specification, the entire invention shall not be granted a patent. However, according to the position to deny it (hereinafter referred to as "illegal theory"), if any of the effects meets the requirements for the specification, the problem of lack of the specification is resolved, and the actual "special and significant effects" is considered as a matter of the determination of inventive step. The position to affirm the theory is that the selective invention can be granted a patent if it satisfies the requirements for the specification and the actual effect is obvious, and any effect in the case of an irregular theory is not sufficient to meet the requirements for the specification, and it is unreasonable to grant a patent in any case where there is no substantial effect (1).

(b)Presentation of case

(1) A case: A case where the requirements for the description of the description are satisfied with respect to the effects of two effects in relation to the two effects in a case where the actual effect is not recognized, while the effect does not meet the requirements for the description of the description, but where the actual effect is recognized as

(2) A case: A case where the description requirements are satisfied as to the effects of the two effects of the Section B and the “special and obvious effects” are also acknowledged, while the effect does not meet the description requirements, but the “special and obvious effects” is acknowledged.

(c) Application of cases and the position of this Court;

(1) According to the position of positive theory, it is prohibited from being granted a patent on the following grounds: (i) the above case and (ii) the case did not meet the specification requirements.

However, according to the position of the theory of denial, both the above cases and (2) cases meet the requirements for specification, but the effect of the case is not recognized by actual evidence, and even if the effect is recognized by actual evidence, it is more effective than the scope that can be predicted by the description or the scope that is stated in the specification, as seen in the above (4), and thus, it cannot be recognized as the effect of invention in the judgment of inventive step, and eventually, it is impossible to obtain a patent, so there is no unreasonable theory that the positive theory does not occur (in the case of (2) cases, the patent is naturally granted)

② Meanwhile, in a case where there are several effects of selective invention aiming at the selective invention, the inventive step of selective invention does not require a significant difference in all kinds in comparison with the effects of the prior invention, but it is sufficient to recognize that some of the effects of selective invention corresponding thereto are more significant than those of the prior invention corresponding thereto (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu1935, Oct. 24, 2003). Over one of the several effects of selective invention aiming at the selective invention, “special and obvious effects” is selected and implemented instead of the prior invention if one of the several effects of selective invention aiming at the selective invention aiming at the selective invention aiming at the selective invention, and the possibility of executing the selective invention is satisfied because the other effects are unclear, and thus the effect of the selective invention aiming at the selective invention aiming at the selective invention aiming at the possibility of being implemented aiming at the selective invention aiming at the possibility of being implemented aiming at the possibility of being implemented aiming at the possibility of being granted a patent, and it is unreasonable to acknowledge the effect that it does not fall within the general requirement or the invention’s.

D. Application to this case

(1) The legality of the statement of pharmacological effect and toxicity effect

The pharmacological effects of the patented invention of this case refer to "the 2nd dypical dypical dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological 2 (the 2nd dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological 2)." Moreover, the 2nd dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological dypological 9 (the 2nd dypological dypological dypological 1)."

Therefore, each of the inventions described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of the instant patent invention is indicated in the specification as to the pharmacological effect and toxicity effect, as well as quantitative data compared to comparable inventions 1, and thus, can recognize the difference between the prior invention and the prior invention solely based on the description in the specification. Therefore, the elements described in the specification are satisfied.

(2) The lawfulness of recording the effects of expulsion from school register

(A) Transfer to the effects of comparable inventions 1 (transfer)

Compared to the determination of inventive step of the instant patent invention, the removal effect of the instant patent invention includes the sporadity, the sporadity and the sporadity, and there is no explicit provision as to the sporadic effect in comparable inventions 1. However, in determining inventive step, if an ordinary technician can spoke the effects favorable to the description in the detailed description even though the favorable effect of the patent invention is not specified in the detailed description of the invention, the effects should also be taken into account in determining inventive step (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Hu3234, Aug. 23, 2002; 2001Hu2702, Dec. 26, 2003; 2004Hu2307, Mar. 24, 2006; 2007Hu5265, Aug. 25, 2007, etc.).

In the specification of the comparable invention 1, the following facts are revealed: “Meethyl-Meth [4,5,6,7-tetraththo-Ethodide (3,2, 2-C)-5-Hlzidine]-O-chlorinated-chlorinated ... It has been determined by white color as a result of putting these in his/her ndroid droid.” (A evidence 5 No. 5, 1). The chemical formula (Ⅰ) of comparable invention 1 is determined. In addition, since the chemical properties of the comparable invention, which can be expected to be ordinarily improved by dratizing the materials on the day of the patented invention in the technical field of the instant case, are safe, melting, smoking, habiting, and dynamic properties of the comparable invention 1, the level of 1 to 21 to 314 chemical properties of the comparable invention 21 to 214, and the level of 31 to 210 et al. can be predicteded.

Therefore, the chemical effect of the patented invention in this case is not a qualitative effect but a dynamic effect against the chemical formula (Ⅰ) effect of the comparable invention 1 in comparison with the chemical formula (I) of the comparable invention 1.

(b) Details of the statement

The specification of the patented invention of this case contains the following descriptions with regard to the above removed effects.

On the other hand, its salts is in white powder. It is desirable to use sediative substance that can be refined by the purification for the manufacture of chemical products because it is difficult to staticly refined. However, it has been observed at this source that it indicates smoking in the nature that it is difficult to dyphere or treat in the industrial scale, among the salt of a compound (). Therefore, it is difficult to see the cryp acid and dypheric acid used ordinarily in pharmacy, for example, e.g., Arabic acid, ambry, tar acid, tar acid, tar acid, e.g., e., e., 4 tar acid, e., e., e., e., chlorate 2, e., e., e., e., e., chronic acid, e.g., e., e., chlorate 3, e.g., e. chlorateic acid.

(C) Whether the requirements of specification are satisfied

In the specification of the patented invention of this case, with regard to the effects of expulsion (the effects of the invention related to a specific salt in paragraphs (2) through (5) of this case), the content of the effect “the acceptance which can be easily determined, resistant, and used as highly favorable active medicine,” is clearly indicated, and there is no quantitative indication about the degree of effect, and no specific presentation is made on the method and conditions for the experiment confirming the productive effect. Furthermore, as a technical task that can be solved through the aforementioned productive effect, the issue of “stimulity, which is difficult to be treated in an unafly or in an industrial scale,” is stated in the manufacture of the pharmaceutical products. However, this is merely merely a technical task that can be solved by dykeing the radioactive materials in the technical field of the patented invention of this case, and there is no statement that the technical task that the comparable invention 1 could not solve is resolved.

Therefore, compared to the chemical formula (Ⅰ) of the comparable invention 1, the person as an ordinary technician may not be aware of the existence of “special and obvious effects” of selective invention as an alternative invention, i.e., the chemical formula (Ⅰ) of the comparable invention 1 and the pharmacological effect of each of the above patented inventions, in cases where the pharmacological effect of the patented invention is similar to those of the comparable invention 1, the detailed description of the patented invention, and the specifications of the patented invention 1 cannot be anticipated to implement the patented invention in lieu of the chemical formula (Ⅰ) of the comparable invention 1, because of the excellence of the removal effect, it is difficult to expect to select and implement the inventions of this case in lieu of the chemical formula (Ⅰ) of the comparable invention 1.

Ultimately, since the specification of the instant patent invention is unclear and thus it cannot be easily implemented by a person with ordinary skills, it cannot be deemed to meet the specification requirements.

(3) The distinct nature of the instant case (the relationship between the two effects)

The effects of the patented invention of this case can be divided into the blood-sorting response and anti-hovassis, low toxicity, decision-making, acceptedness, and non-smoking. In selecting certain substances as the use of medicine, the effects of the patented invention of this case can be divided into two parts in consideration of pharmacological effects and toxicity effects, such as the blood-sornating response and anti-sorting operation, etc. (the index showing the correlation between the two effects is treatment coefficient, and even if the pharmacological effects are outstanding, toxicity is strong even if the pharmacological effects are strong, the pharmacological effects are inadequate, and if there is no substance replacing the pharmacological effects even if they are strong, the effects of selecting the substance are completely complementary to each other), decision-making, acceptance, and non-soring effects are also considered together.

However, as seen earlier, among the effects of the patented invention of this case, the requirements for the specification were satisfied. Thus, even if the removal effect did not meet the requirements for the specification, the entire specification of the patented invention of this case should be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for the specification as seen in Section 3. (5).

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, each of the inventions in paragraphs (1) through (5) of this case satisfies the specification requirements under Article 8 (3) of the former Patent Act, so there is no error of omission in entry.

6. Determination on the Claim 1 invention of this case

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(A) As to newness

In the case of a compound in which the dysium of which compound is publicly known and in which the dysium exists, it is scientific sense that two dysiums might exist in the case of a compound in which the dysiums are located, even though the dysium properties of a particular dysium have the effect of a dysium in terms of pharmacological, toxicity, dynamic properties, etc. compared to the dysiums, or in terms of the dysium properties, but whether the dysiums of a particular dysium have significant excellent effects can not be predicted at all unless the dysology actually separates the dysium properties and confirms the characteristics through experiments. Thus, an invention of a specific dysium properties of a compound must be treated as an selective invention that

However, although the specification of the comparable invention 1 states "each Eth Eths", it is limited to the general possibility that a compound falling under the general formula (Ⅰ) of the comprehensive scope can exist in two form of optical dysology, and the fact that the form of optical dysology can be confirmed separately or the method of separation is stated, or there is no clear motive to choose one of the two optical dysology properties, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the clogs of the instant Claim 1 invention specifically commenced.

(B) As to inventive step

The Clopiggrels of the instant Claim No. 1 have the pharmacological activity and the level of 1/2 higher than that of the chemical type (I) launched in comparable inventions 1. As such, the clopigggrels have the pharmacological activity and the level of 1/2 higher than that of the chemical type (I) launched in the instant Claim No. 1. As such, the overall effect of approximately four times is excellent, and there is also the effect of reducing side effects that do not cause competition. If the drugs seek the treatment coefficient indicating the scope of safe and effective administration, it is obvious that the drugs have the treatment coefficient of approximately 4 times to 16 times higher than that of the Lami.

(2) Summary of the defendants' assertion

(A) According to the specification of the instant patent invention, the instant Claim No. 1 invention contains both influorous or resistant salt, and thus constitutes an unsatisfying invention (Defendant A Group) since it includes the portion not subject to the instant Claim No. 1 invention as well as the portion not subject to the instant Claim No. 1 invention, although it is easily determined, and is subject to the instant Claim No. 1 invention without having a satisfyingness and satisfyingness, excluding salt, which is of a nature difficult to treat as an influorous or industrial scale, excluding salt which is difficult to satisfy, and without having a satability.

(B) The patent application for the instant patent invention is well known prior to the filing of the instant patent invention, and the cited invention 1 is the subject of “each Ethiopic,” as well as the chemical formula (Ⅰ) invention. Thus, the Clopiggrelgrel of the instant Claim 1 is specifically launched in comparable invention 1, and thus, is not new.

(C) The invention of salt for a chemical substance publicly known in the field of medicine is deemed to be the same as that of the chemical substance. In particular, since the chemical formula (Ⅰ) in comparable inventions 1 has been initiated with the chemical formula (Ⅰ), salt permissible in the pharmaceutical science of the instant Claim 1 is not recognized as newness or that can be easily claimed by a person with ordinary skills, and the nonobviousness of the invention is not recognized.

(D) In general, luminous agents generally have the pharmacological effects of dynams, and it is clear that any of the dynams has excellent pharmacological effects of dynams compared to other dynams. Among them, whether or not any dynams appear excellent pharmacological effects in any of the dynams can easily be seen by ordinary technicians through repeated experiments. In addition, among the dynams of chemical formula (I), the ratio of dynams of dynams to the dynams of dynams is 1/2, and where the dynams of dynams to the same quantity as the dynams of dynams, it is natural that the dynams of dynams appear more than the dynams of dynams, more than the dynams of dynams.

B. Determination as to the completion of invention

Defendant A Group asserts that the instant Claim A invention is not complete as described in the foregoing A. (2)(a), and therefore, according to the specification of the instant patent invention, the instant Claim A invention is subject to the Cloridogggggggrel and its saltss with excellent pharmacological effect compared to the cited Invention 1, and is subject to the “defluently determined, stimulated and implogggggggggggrels and their saltss” described in the specification. Thus, Defendant A Group’s above assertion is without merit, since it can be known that the instant Claim A. is an invention of paragraphs (3) through (5) rather than the instant Claim.

C. Determination of newness

(1) Contents of the instant Claim 1 invention

The term “Clopigggrel” and “her salts permitted in an pharmacologically manner” are comprised of “Clopiggggrel” and “her salts permitted. Limers are substances mixed with 50:50 in terms of the characteristics of opical opical opical opical opical opical opical opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opics without chemical combinations between them. As so, Limers constitute a subordinate concept, and opic opic opic opic op

(2) Details of the start of comparable invention 1

“메틸-α-(4,5,6,7-테트라하이드로 티에노(3,2-C)-5-피리딜)-o-클로로페닐-아세테이트”(갑가 제6호증, 청구항 2), “이들 화합물은 한 개의 비대칭탄소(asymmetrical carbon)를 가지므로, 두 개의 광학이성질체(enantiomer)로 존재한다. 본 발명은 각각의 에난티오머 둘 다와, 그들의 혼합물에 대한 것이다.”(갑가 제6호증 제2면), “[실시예 1] 메틸-α-[4, 5, 6, 7-테트라하이드로-티에노(3, 2-c)-5-피리딘]-O-클로로페닐 아세테이트(R₁=-CH₃, X=2-Cl)(유도체번호 1). 3.47g(0.144몰)의 메틸-2-클로로-O-클로로 페닐 아세테이트와19.82g(0.144몰)의 탄산칼륨을 200㎖의 디메틸 포름아미드 중의 4, 5, 6, 7-테트라하이드로-티에노(3, 2-c)-피리딘의 용액 20g(144몰)에 가했다. 그 다음 용액을 90℃에서 4시간 동안 가열하였다. 반응 혼합물을 실온까지 냉각시키고, 무기염을 여과한 다음 용매를 증발시켰다. 잔기를 물에 취한 다음 에틸 에테르로 추출하였다. 에테르추출물을 물로 세척하고 황산나트륨 상에서 건조시킨 다음 증발시킨 결과 황색 오일이 얻어졌으며 이것을 그의 하이드로 클로라이드로 정제시킨 결과 백색 결정이 얻어졌다.”(갑가 제6호증 제3면)

(3) Determination as to Clopiggrels

(A) Commencement of language

비교대상발명 1에 기재된 화합물 중 갑가 제6호증 청구항 2에 기재된 “메틸-α-(4,5,6,7-테트라하이드로 티에노(3,2-C)-5-피리딘)-o-클로로페닐-아세테이트”는, 일반식(I)의 화합물에서 X가 2-Cl이고, Y가 OCH₃(즉 Y가 OR이고, R이 CH₃인 경우)인 화합물에 해당하는데, 이는 이 사건 제1항 발명의 ‘메틸 α-5(4,5,6,7-테트라하이드로(3,2-C)티에노 피리딜)(2-클로로페닐)-아세테이트’와 명칭만 달리할 뿐 같은 물질이다.

In addition, the comparable invention 1 contains not only chemical(I) as well as chemical(I), but also the subject of “each Ethiopis” invention, so Clopigrels are also written in text.

(B) substantial commencement

이에 대하여 원고는 위 가.(1)(가)항과 같이 주장하므로 살피건대, 이 사건 제1항 발명과 같은 화학물질은 다양한 성질을 가지는 것이어서 화학식으로 표현되는 구성 자체만으로는 어떠한 효과를 가지는지, 어떠한 용도에 쓰일 수 있는지 알기 어렵고, 화학물질발명의 본질은 “신규의 유용한 물질을 창제하는 것”이므로, 화학물질 발명의 명세서에는, ① 유용성(특정한 효과의 기재로 표현될 것이다), ② 제조방법, ③ 확인자료 등이 기재되어 있어야 한다. 그리고 선택발명에서의 신규성 요건 즉, 선행발명이 선택발명을 구성하는 하위개념을 구체적으로 개시하고 있는지를 판단함에 있어서는 선행문헌에 선택발명에 대한 문언적인 기재가 존재하는지의 여부뿐만 아니라, 그 기술분야에서 통상의 기술자가 선행문헌의 기재 내용과 출원시의 기술상식에 기초하여 선행문헌으로부터 직접적으로 선택발명의 존재를 인식할 수 있는 정도의 것인지를 참작하여 판단하여야 하며, 부제탄소가 여러 개(n)인 화학물질의 경우 다수(2ⁿ)의 광학이성질체가 존재하므로, 선행발명에 구체적인 광학이성질체를 특정하지 아니하고 ‘라세미체 및 그 각 광학이성질체’라고만 문언적으로 기재되어 있는 경우에는 선택발명의 결격요건인 ‘구체적 개시’가 있다고 볼 수 없을 것이다.

Unlike the instant case’s health, chemical compounds (I) have only one butane, so it is obvious to ordinary technicians that there are only 2 of the optical properties of the instant invention. The specification of the comparable Invention 1 contains not only the chemical formula (I), but also the click click click click clclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclcllclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclclcllclclclcllclclclclclcllclclclclclcllclclcllclclclclclclclclclclclclclcl.

(4) Determination as to salt permitted by the pharmaceutical science of Clopidoggrel

The salt of chemicals does not affect the display of the unique pharmacological use of chemicals, but may affect the absorption of drugs. Therefore, making chemicals into the form of various kinds of salt permitted in the pharmaceutical field in the manufacture of drugs is widely and commonly used in the technical field of the patented invention of this case (Evidence No. 32-2, 33 and the purport of the whole pleadings).

Therefore, as seen in the instant Claim 1, a simple salt-type invention subject to “all kinds of salt permitted in pharmacologically” without selecting a specific salt with regard to the chloropydoggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggs

D. Sub-committee

Inasmuch as the instant Claim 1’s invention specifically launched in comparable inventions 1, newness is denied, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, even if it has a significant effect compared to comparable inventions 1, the registration ought to be invalidated without examining the inventive step.

7. Judgment on the Claim 2 invention of this case

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

(A) The instant Claim 2 invention pertains to the chlopidogrel’s salt. Since the clopiggggggggrel of the instant patent invention is new and non-obviousness is recognized compared to the comparable invention 1, the instant Claim 2 invention is naturally recognized as new and non-obviousness.

(B) The physical properties of the dynam compound are completely different from those of the dynam compound, and the kind of acid or salt forming sediable salt is naturally different from that of the dynam compound, and it cannot be predicted that the dynamite of any compound form sedient salt.

(C) Some of the salts of the instant patent invention are difficult to determine, damp, or are too low to accommodate, etc. The salts of the instant patent invention have additional effects in that it can solve the above problems.

(2) Summary of the defendants' assertion

The chemical formula (Ⅰ) salt in the comparable invention 1, which began in the comparable invention 1, is a mixture of salt in the eromatic eromatic chlorate and chlorate in the eromatic erodic erodic erodic erodic erodic erodic erodic erodic erodic chlodic erodic e

B. Determination of newness

The instant Claim 2 invention is “clopiggrel’s salt”. As seen in the foregoing Claim 6, it shall be deemed that the dynag’s salt, which has been specifically launched in the comparable invention 1, has commenced even in terms of the nature of each luminous source, and since the dynag’s salt of chemical formula 1 is indicated in the implementation of the comparable invention 1, it shall be deemed that the dynag’s salt of the dynag is specifically launched in terms of the dynag’s salt of the dynag. Accordingly, the instant Claim 2 invention cannot be recognized as newness.

C. Sub-committee

Inasmuch as the instant Claim 2’s invention is new by comparisond Invention 1, the registration should be invalidated without any need to examine the inventive step.

8. Determination on the Claim 3 invention of this case

A. Determination as to the completion of the invention and newness

(1) Determination as to the completion of an invention

According to the specification of the instant patent invention, Defendant A Group asserts that the technical effect of the instant patent invention is easily determined, has no absorption, and in particular, it provides receptorable salt that can be used as a highly favorable active medicine. According to the evidence Nos. 22 and 23, the claim amount of the instant patent invention No. 3 does not exclude this non-determination type from the claim amount of the instant patent invention. Thus, Defendant A Group asserts that the instant patent invention No. 3 invention includes an unsatisfying invention, and thus, it constitutes an unsatisfy invention, as it includes an unsatisfying invention that does not achieve the effects of the instant patent invention.

On the other hand, an invention eligible for a patent shall be completed, and completed invention shall be specifically and objectively composed to the extent that it can obtain technical effects to be achieved by an ordinary technician repeatedly. The determination shall be based on the level of technology at the time of the application, taking into account the purpose, composition, effect of the invention described in the specification of the patent application as a whole (Supreme Court Decision 93Hu1810 delivered on December 27, 1994).

He returned to the instant case, Eul evidence Nos. 22, and 23 are all publications published in 2006 and 2004, which were after the filing of the patent application of the instant patent invention. Even if it was revealed that the technology after the filing of the patent application of the instant patent invention may exist in the form of decision-making as well as in the form of decision-making, the technical level after the filing of the instant patent application cannot be considered as the standard for determining the completion of the invention. Thus, the above argument by Defendant A Group is without merit.

(2) Determination of newness

(A) Summary of Defendant A Group’s assertion

In the art of comparable invention 1, patent invention 7 and 9, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 2, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 3, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 1, patent invention 2, patent invention 2, patent invention 1, patent invention 2, patent invention 3, patent invention 3, patent invention 1, patent invention 3, patent invention 1, patent invention 2, patent invention

(B) Whether the commencement of language begins or not

갑가 제5호증의 기재에 의하면, 비교대상발명 1의 실시예에는 일반식(Ⅰ)에 포함되는 21종의 화합물의 제조예가 구체적으로 기재되어 있고, 그 중 화학식(Ⅰ) 라세미체에 해당하는 R이 CH₃이고, X가 2-Cl인 화합물의 염산염은 기재되어 있으나(실시예 1, 유도체번호 1), 나아가 클로피도그렐 황산수소염 또는 화학식(Ⅰ) 라세미체의 황산수소염은 명시적으로 기재되어 있지 않다.

In addition, the specification of the comparable invention 1 is defined as YH, OR, etc. among the compounds of general formula (Ⅰ), X is defined as hydrogen, rolog, halog, and low-sufficiency, etc. In the case of OR, it is stated that YOR can form additional infection with arms or organic acid permitted in medicine, while it is desirable among the above air ventilation, and there is no stipulation as to what kind of weapons or organic acid suitable for specific air ventilation is, it cannot be seen that the sulfur oxide of hydrogen or chemical formula (Ⅰ) begins.

(C) Whether substantial commencement has been commenced

피고 가그룹은 이 사건 제3항 발명의 클로피도그렐 황산수소염은 비교대상발명 1의 라세미체 황산수소염과 실질적으로 동일한 물질이므로 비교대상발명 1에 실질적인 개시가 있다는 취지의 주장을 하므로 살피건대, 비교대상발명 1에 개시된 화합물 중 화학식(Ⅰ)과 근사하면서 황산수소염인 화합물로는, 치환기 R이 CH₂-CH₂-CH₃(실시예 7, 유도체번호 7) 또는 CH₂-CH₂-CH₂-CH₃(실시예 8, 유도체번호 8) 또는 (실시예 9, 유도체번호 9)이고, X가 2-Cl인 화합물 3개가 있는데, 이들은 이 사건 제3항 발명의 클로피도그렐 황산수소염과 비교하여 모핵은 동일하고, 치환기(R)가 메틸기 대신 n-프로필 또는 n-부틸 또는 이소프로필로 대체된 것으로서 클로피도그렐 황산수소염과는 탄소수 2~3개의 차이가 있다.

However, according to the results of the experiments on the operation of the blood plate 1 in comparison with comparable inventions 1, there is a substantial difference in the pharmacological effect between the chemical formula (Ⅰ) Laccinite salt (intestine Nos. 1) and each sulfur oxide infection (intestine Nos. 7, 8, 9) of the comparable inventions. Thus, even if the chemical structure significance is not significant because there is no difference in the number of carbon 2 to 3 as seen below, it cannot be seen as the same substance.

Table 1 /Sgd. 1 / Table 1 / 4 / 13 x 93 x 93 x 60 ± 66 / [Attachment 2] 13 x 25 / 25 / 60 / 60 / 66 / 66 / 2 / 4 0 / 73 03 / 73 03 / 103 83 / 100 83 / 100 / 100 / 100 / 360 9 / 130 / 5 25 / 9 5 25 / 50 9.35 205 / 9.35 25.25 / 505 / 19.36.5 /4 /

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Clopigbecquerels of the instant Claim No. 3 as the substance substantially identical to the sulfur oxide infection of the general formula (Ⅰ) compound commenced in the comparable Invention 1, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant Claim No. 3 was practically commenced by the comparable Invention 1.

(3) Fixed interest rate

The instant Claim 3 invention does not constitute an unsatisfy invention, but is not specifically initiated in comparable inventions 1, and thus, its originality cannot be denied.

B. Determination of inventive step

(1) Criteria for determination

In order for a selective invention to have a significant effect compared to a prior invention, all effects of a selective invention should not be significantly different in all kinds compared to those of the prior invention. A part of the effects of a selective invention is deemed to be more obvious compared to those of the prior invention corresponding to those of the prior invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu1935, Oct. 24, 2003). Since all of the inventions included in a selective invention should be superior to the prior invention, the highest heat of the selective invention and the highest excellent of the prior invention should be compared.

(2) Compared materials

(A) Preparation for the material specifically launched in comparable inventions 1

In order to affirm the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 3 invention, which is a selective invention, compared to the cited invention No. 1, the “special and obvious effect” should be recognized compared to all the materials contained in the comparable invention No. 1. However, a compound that falls under the general formula (I) contained in the comparable invention No. 1 may be included in a flood bag, and in the case of a compound that is not specifically launched, it is difficult to predict what effect it has as an ordinary technician, and it is difficult to predict what effect it has as an ordinary technician. Therefore, it should be compared with the 21st compound (indu number 1 through 21) specifically

In addition, if the effect of a selective invention is more than that of a prior invention, if one of them is deemed obvious, the inventive step of the selective invention can be affirmed. However, in order to evaluate that the selective invention has "special, and obvious effects" compared to the prior invention, the whole effects of the selective invention are considered in full. As such, if the remaining effects other than those recognized as apparent, are remarkably bad than those of the prior invention, the effect of the selective invention cannot be said to be special, and obvious compared to the prior invention, and the remaining effects should be equivalent to the effects of the prior invention.

However, the effect of the instant Claim No. 3 invention claimed by the Plaintiff as superior to the comparable invention No. 1 is a pharmacological effect, toxicity effect, and chemical effect. The pharmaceutical effect is necessary for the chemical composition of a compound that has the pharmacological effect. As such, where the pharmacological effect is not premised (in a case where the pharmacological effect is significantly lowered), the pharmaceutical effect itself does not have any particular value. As such, if the pharmacological effect of the 21 compound that has been specifically launched in the comparable invention No. 1 is inferior, it is difficult to view it as a substance with the most superior effect among the compounds of the comparable invention No. 1 even if the 21 compound that has been specifically launched in the comparable invention No. 1 is deemed to have the pharmacological effect. Therefore, the most superior among the various compounds of the comparable invention No. 3 invention No. 1 is a soc that the pharmacological effect is excellent (see the test result of Table 1 through 4). Therefore, it is sufficient to determine the substantial effect of the instant Claim No. 3 invention to be compared with the chemical formula No. 1 (I) and chchlorate et chlorate.

(B) Preparation against the remaining claims of the patented invention of this case

Where a patented invention is divided into several claims, each claim shall have the effect as an independent invention, and the grounds for invalidation of registration shall also be judged independently (see Article 69(2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990). Thus, whether the claim 3 invention has a significant effect compared to the comparable invention 1 is sufficient compared to the materials specifically commenced in the comparable invention 1, and it does not have a significant effect compared to the materials of other claims registered with the claim 3 invention of this case.

(3) Determination on the pharmacological effect

(A) The party's assertion

① Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The chemical formula (I) compound of the instant Claim 3 indicates pharmacologicalal activity only by clopigggrels (Clopigggrels) among the fluoral and fluoral agents of the fluoral and fluoral characteristics, and the fluoral fluoral fluoral gluoral gluoral gluoral gluoral gluors of the instant Claim 1 does not show any pharmacologicalal activity. As such, the Clogggggrelggrelggrels of the instant Claim 3 have the

(B) (C) any of the kinds of balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balutic balc

B. Even if the priority of the instant patent invention is separated from the body of Lane alone, it is difficult to expect that the body of Lane can obtain any effect different from Lane because it would be highly likely to be dissipated, because it would be more likely to be dissipated in Cambodia, yellow acid, or disguised acid, etc.) would be added to kyllogic acid combined with the body of Lane, even if it is separated from the body of Lane alone.

② Summary of Defendant A Group’s assertion

Since the dalsium is a substance in which the opical opical opical opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opic opics without a chemical combination, it cannot be seen as a significant effect which shows a difference of opic opic op

(B) Test result and public notice

(1) Preparation for salt chlopiggquerels and chemical formula (I) dydchlorates.

In the specification of the patented invention of this case, each of the following table table is written as a result of the experiment (mark I), which is a response source, after collecting the blood plate using ADP and administered the drugs, and is the result of the test which measured the rate of blood heaging rate by administering the drugs after collecting the blood plate using call halog, as a response source, and as a result of the test which measured the rate of blood heaging rate after inserting the drugs. As a result of the test (mark III) which is not meaningful as a statistical value (the value indicated as “n.s...”).

Table 6.0 0.07 0.07 0.07 40.00 67 0.10 67 0.10 80 67.010 67.00 0.05 0.05 17.00 0.05 0.00 69 0.00 0.017.9 17.000 40.00 5000 0.64 6.05 7.05 000 6.4000 6.01 67.010 67.010 0.010 80 0.00 6.40 7.40 05 6.40 7.04 04 7.04 6.404 7.04 7.04 04 7.04 7.5 1404 7.204 7.5 104 7.40

(2) Preparation for hydropiggquerel infections and chlopiggquerel infections.

Table 2.50.01 5 5 05 82.001 Clopia Clopia Clopia Clopia Clopia Clopia Clopia Clopia Clopia Clopia Clopia Clopia Clopia Clopia (SR25990A) 2.5 0.01 5 75 0.001 82.01 5 0.01 5 0.001 5 67.001 80.00 0.01 200 0.01 205 6.5 105 105 6.05 105 6.105 105 6.105 105 7.205 105 10.105 105 7.105 10.25 1005 10.25 10

(3) Facts of public notice.

According to evidence Nos. 27 (No. 104, No. 13, No. 25) and evidence No. 27 (No. 104, No. 13, No. 135) and evidence No. 6, Ramers and each luminous transition body are identical in the physical and chemical nature of the substance itself, but there are changes in the composition of the original body of the left, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g.).

(C) the board:

According to the above pharmacological activity test result, the pharmacological effect of Clopidoggrel, which is the invention of paragraph (3) of this case, is higher than approximately two times the chemical formula (Ⅰ) which has been specifically launched in the comparable invention 1, but is lower than the Clopiggggrel salt.

However, according to the above public notice facts, either of the opical or opical or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opportal or opport.

Therefore, the Clopigggrels of the instant Claim No. 3 invention not only does the pharmacological effect compared to the Clopiggrel salt of comparable invention 1 (e.g., inventive step shall be denied), but also does not have a significant effect on the sole basis of the chemical formula (Ⅰ) that shows an excellent pharmacological effect twice compared to the chemical formula No. 1.

(4) Determination on the toxic effect and treatment coefficient

(A) The party's assertion

① Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The instant Claim 3 invention has a very low toxicity compared to the body of the body of comparable inventions 1, and is highly highly toxic than the body of the body of comparable inventions 1, and is highly toxicacy. As such, it is difficult to easily predict that any of the balomic body has only a useful nature in all aspects of pharmacological and toxicity compared to other balomic body of the other balomic body.

(B) The dynasium and optosium of the chemical formula (Ⅰ) compound both dynasium and optosium (non-fasium) were caused by crynasium before the death in the long-term crynasium for one year of crynasium and masium, but the crynasium did not cause crynasium. Hynasium is a fatal side which may cause death, and in the long-term crynasium for the treatment of dynasium diseases, such as crynasium, in particular, the crynasium is a major part that can measure these side effects. Accordingly, cronasium does not cause hynasium, solely because it does not cause hynasium, has a significant effect in terms of the safety of comparable inventions 1.

The specification of the patented invention of this case is written about toxicity, resistantness, and treatment coefficient, and both of them indicate the effect of drugs in terms of safety, which is also related to stability, and which may occur before the death of laboratory animals in the acute toxicity experiment listed in order to prove the toxic effect of the patented invention of this case. As such, the effect of light training is included in the toxic effect, and is included in the specification of the patented invention of this case.

Clopiggggrels of the instant patent invention are more than the body of the body of comparable inventions 1, which are more than twice the pharmacological effect, and the toxicity is more than 1/2, so the treatment coefficient is more than 4 times the treatment coefficient. If Party A seeks treatment coefficient in consideration of the adverse effects at the time of long-term speculation by means of the evidence 11, the treatment coefficient is more than 16 times the treatment coefficient (667/75/89: 83/150-5.6) of the Clopiggggrels compared to the Rabane infection of comparable inventions 1.

② Summary of Defendant A Group’s assertion

As in the effect of toxicity, one-half degree of toxicity is merely the degree of ordinary technicians to predict sufficiently. One-half degree of toxicity of the dynasium is the dynasium's dynasium's dynasium's dynasium's dynasium.

(C) The chemical formula (Ⅰ) of the comparable invention 1, the Clopidoggrels and their specific infections are all within a safe area with respect to toxicity, so Clopidogggrels cannot be deemed to have significant effect compared to Llostrates. In addition, when the treatment factor is more than five, the treatment factor of the chemical formula (Ⅰ) is a safe drug, and the treatment factor of the chemical formula (I) is sufficiently safe drug as 110.4, and there is no more significance for the treatment factor.

As a result, acute toxicity caused by a disaster is a numerical value from the administration of the quantity that causes death to animals within a day, once a medicine securing the safety of use as a medicine has a difference in its numerical value, and it cannot be deemed as a significant action effect in using it for the same purpose. Since acute toxicity test dose is considerably large compared to the volume of drugs, it cannot be deemed that such condition is applied to the condition that it is actually used as a medicine.

The Plaintiff’s acute toxicity test does not satisfy the conditions under Article 3 of the “Standards for the Toxic Test of Drugs, etc.” (at least two types of test for at least two test animals, respectively, and at least two test pathss), and cannot be believed as a result. In addition, it cannot be the grounds for recognizing that the above-mentioned non-trustable materials are low all kinds of toxicity, including light.

The effect that a dynasty dynasty is not superior to the dynasty, is not specified in the specification of the patented invention in this case, so it cannot be considered as an effect to determine the inventive step.

(b) the significance of the toxic experiment and treatment coefficient;

(1) Toxicology is a study on the side effects of living substances, and all drugs do not have toxicity in the untoxic quantity obtained by demonstrating their effects, but cause a certain degree of harmful effects if they are administered in excess of a certain quantity.

(2) The stability in pharmaceutical substances is expressed by the treatment coefficient, which is the percentage of the treatment capacity in the toxic capacity of a drug [the volume of the pharmaceutical substance causing death by 50% (the volume necessary for indicating the pharmacological effect of 50%) that is necessary for the toxic capacity and the treatment effectiveness of a drug, that is, the relationship between the volume necessary for the toxic capacity and the treatment effectiveness of a drug, and the safety of drugs is also high as the treatment coefficient is also high.

③ The toxicity of a drug is classified into acute toxicity, acute toxicity, and chronic toxicity. The toxicity test may proceed simultaneously with and simultaneously at the same time. The acute toxicity test shall be calculated based on LD50 on the information obtained in the course of observing their life and death with a large number of volume drugs at one week after administering them into animals at a same time. Such LD50 values are the most basic test indicating the safety of a compound, and are assessed on the degree of the toxicity of a compound necessary for animal death. It is widely used as a general indicator for the toxicity of the substance, and any drug with equivalent pharmacological effects, which is worth developing as a drug by comparing the most safely.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 11, Evidence No. 12, Evidence No. 14-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

(C) Results of the experiment

(1) The acute toxicity experiment.

According to Section IV of the specification of the instant patent invention, LD50 of Clopiggggggrels (SR 2590C) LD51 is 2591, while chemical formula (I) LD50 of LD50 of LD50 of Llopigs (PC 4099) is 1615; Clopigggggggggggrel salt (SR 2590A) LD50 of LD50 of LD516. Thus, the Clopiggggggggggggrels of the instant Claim 3 invention is highly toxic than 1.6 times the Clopiggggggggir salt of comparable invention 1, but it is more toxic than the Clogggggggir salt of comparable invention 1.

(2) Effects of causing light oil:

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 10, Gap, as a result of the acute toxicity test on Marine (the same type as rat, Mat), Marates (the other type compared to Mat), and Maco sublime (non-defluor), caused clorates before the death, but Cloridoggrel salt does not cause light.

In addition, according to Gap's statement of evidence 11, as a result of acute toxicity testing for T and Eas, as a result of chemical formula (Ⅰ), dynasium and opical luminous dynasium of the chemical formula (I), but the clopiggrel or its salts did not cause light; as a result of chronic toxicity testing for the 1 year period of Maccogs, the dynasium of chemical formula (Ⅰ) generated light, but the clopiggrel did not cause light.

(D) the board:

(1) Toxic effects and treatment coefficient.

First of all, the Clopidoggrels of the instant Claim No. 3 is toxic compared to the Clopidogrel salt of comparable invention 1, and the pharmacological effect is low, as seen in the foregoing Claim No. 3, so the treatment coefficient is also lower.

(1) As seen in the above (B) above, (3) invention of the instant Claim 3 is highly likely to have an effect on 100 U.S.C. 1; (4) invention of the instant Claim 3 is highly likely to have an effect on 15 U.S.C. ; (5) invention of the instant Claim 1 is highly likely to have an effect on 16 U.S.C. ; (4) invention of the instant Claim 1 is highly likely to have an effect on 13 U.S.C. 2; (5) invention of the instant Claim 1 is highly likely to have an effect on 13 U.S.C. 2; and (5) invention of the instant Claim 1 is highly likely to have an effect on 15 U.S.C. 2); and (3) Meditablely to have an effect on 10 U.S. c. c.

(2) Effects of causing light oil:

In determining whether a patented invention has a significant effect compared to a prior invention, it shall not be considered that the patented invention is not indicated in the specification or it is not an ordinarily skilled person's expected effect from the specification (Supreme Court Decision 96Hu221 delivered on May 30, 1997).

In this case, it refers to the phenomenon in which the flag is cut down or far away from the body without any particular reason, and the flag, hystheme, brain species, addiction is the cause of the flag, and the body is generated in part, and it is continuously and intermittently, and there is a possibility that the flag may occur even if the flag might have died due to the blag's difficulty in respiratory, etc., but there are many cases where the flag is not discovered in advance, and in particular, the flag is caused by drugs accumulated in the body (the purport of all pleadings) if the flag is taken into a long-term drug (the purport of all pleadings).

① The specification of the patented invention of this case does not contain any indication about salutism, and ② even if salutism is included in the items to be observed at the time of salutic experiment as alleged by the Plaintiff, this is merely a light that occurs within a short period of time from the administration of the drugs to their death, and thus, it does not have any meaning even if it may cause a death separate from the toxicity of the drugs (i.e., death within the next short period), ③ as a side effect of the drugs, which is caused by the drugs accumulated at the time of salutic experiment. The possibility of salutism can be estimated to a certain extent by the light that appeared at the time of salutic experiment. Even if salutic tests were short of the period of salutic toxicity, it can not be deemed that saluticosiss that are observed at the time of salutic experiment are included, and there is no indication in the specification of the patented invention in the specification of this case.

Therefore, the effect of the Plaintiff’s failure to attract the competitive training of the instant Claim No. 3 is that it is not indicated in the specification of the instant patent invention, but cannot be predicted by ordinary technicians, or that there is no particular significance (or that at the time of chronic toxicity experiment).

(e) Fixedness

According to the above experiment result, the Clopidogggrels of the instant Claim No. 3 invention not only is toxic effect compared to the Clopiggggrel salt of comparable invention 1 (e.g., inventive step shall be denied by itself), but also it cannot be deemed that the chemical formula (Ⅰ) is more excellent than the Clopigggggggrel salt of the instant Claim No. 1, and the treatment coefficient with more than 1.6 times superior to the chemical formula No. 1, and more excellent treatment coefficient than the dlovog salt.

Therefore, the instant Claim No. 3 invention cannot be deemed to have a significant low toxicity effect compared to the comparable invention No. 1.

(5) Determination as to the removal effect

(A) the significance of the removed effects

(1) General meaning of expulsion.

Drugs are processed in various forms according to the purpose of use and supplied as medicine. The form of medicine is prepared, processed as a form of medicine is prepared, and processed as a form is prepared, and the processed drugs are prepared (Preparations). Most drugs are in the shape of misunderstanding, which are not processed, and they are not processed, and they are difficult to be prepared as well as their effectiveness and safety. Therefore, it is a systematic operation to increase the usefulness of drugs as a medicine by improving their problems.

The most convenient and safe use of drugs is uniforms, and when it is impossible to expect the effect of a fire-fighter due to the influence of a fire-fighter, a medication shall be used. Since a horse administration takes an ambassador in the middle, the drugs required by the chief ambassador cannot be made as medication, and where the effect as a chief ambassador is reduced, it is made by injection or oral administration (a medication with the intent of a drug absorption through the prevention of occupation within the mouth).

[Grounds for Recognition: Purport of the entire pleadings; Reference to Data Submission of Defendant A Group 45]

(2) Criteria for determining the inventive step of an expulsion effect

The same applies to the ordinary invention, in particular, to the invention of a chemical substance, such as the patented invention in this case, contains a variety of effects, and it is highly probable that the known effect may be newly clarified in accordance with the development of technology. Therefore, in determining the inventive step of the invention, the term “the apparentness of the effect” in the judgment of inventive step

In the effects of the same quality, both inventions can be easily recognized if the difference in the effects of both inventions is large. However, in light of the purpose of the invention, whether a portion of the invention constitutes a “satisfying” to the extent that it is possible to affirm the inventive step of the selective invention only if there is a quantitative difference in the effects of the invention, shall be determined by focusing on the type and degree of necessary effects in light of the purpose of the invention, and in particular, whether a new technical task can be solved in light of the purpose of the invention can be an important standard. This, even if the difference between 1-2% and 1-2% can resolve a new technical task, if the prior invention can resolve the technical task that is not resolved, there is a difference in the effect that the new technical task can not solve, even if it leaves the purpose of the invention, there is no objective difference in the effects of the two inventions. Accordingly, even if the part exceeding the above scope is considerably ineffective and there is no value in the invention, and even if it is necessary and sufficient to recognize the effect of the prior invention in light of the purpose.

② The claim 3 invention of this case is about the material "Clopidogrel sullorate," and for other purposes, evaluation of the determination, acceptance, and non-smoking of both inventions may vary. However, the purpose of the claim 3 invention of this case, which is identified through the specification of the patented invention of this case, is to provide materials useful for blood genetic treatment. The chemical effect of the claim 3 invention of this case is the physical nature necessary to make clopidogggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggs

(b) the movement (transfer) of the effects of both inventions;

As examined in paragraph (2) of the above No. 5. D. (2), the invention of this case only contains static description as to resistant effects, such as determinedness, admittingness, and non-smoking, and an ordinary technician can predict that the chemical formula (Ⅰ) in which comparable invention 1 is specifically commenced through the description related to the formation of salt stated in the specification of the comparable invention 1, and the chemical formula (Ⅰ) in which comparable invention 1 is specifically commenced, and the chemical formula (Ⅰ) in which comparable invention 1 is located, and the chemical formula (I) inclopiacquerel is capable of controlling it as medicine. Thus, the chemical effect of the invention of this case 3 invention of this case is the effects of the comparable invention 1 and the effects of the same quality.

(C) Whether a description of significant effects is written

① In determining whether a patented invention has a significant effect compared to a prior invention, it shall not be considered that it is not indicated in the specification or that it is not an ordinarily skilled person’s expected effect from the specification (see Supreme Court Decision 96Hu221, May 30, 1997). As examined in Article 5-C (4) above, “special and obvious effect” in which a selective invention is compared to a prior invention has the same nature as a “satisfy” in the ordinary invention as the basis for granting a patent to a selective invention, and thus, it shall be stated to the extent that the ordinary skilled person can recognize it through the description in the specification. In the absence of such an indication, it shall not be considered as the effects of the invention, nor shall it be considered as the effects of the invention be considered in recognizing the inventive step of the invention.

However, as examined in Section 5. D. (2) of the above, the specification of the instant patent invention does not state that “the fact that the instant Claim 3 invention is remarkably excellent” is compared to the effects of the same quality possessed by comparable inventions 1, and thus, the excellence of the technical effect asserted by the Plaintiff exceeds the scope of the effects recognized and completed by the inventor, and thus, it cannot be recognized as the effects of the instant Claim 3 invention.

② Also, the chemical effect of the instant patent invention’s clpiggggggggggrels selected the chemical effect from among the salts of Clpiggggggggrels on the premise that the pharmacological effect and toxicity effect are excellent compared to the cited invention 1. Unlike the pharmacological effect and toxicity effect, it is not an invention which has an excellent chemical effect compared to the comparable invention 1 (the Plaintiff asserts as such). As examined in the foregoing paragraphs (3) and (4), it is not recognized that the pharmacological effect and toxicity effect of the instant Claim 3 invention are more special and obvious compared to the comparable invention 1. If only the pharmaceutical effect stated in the specification of the instant Claim 3 invention is deemed to have an ordinarily high level of salt compared to the comparable invention 1, it cannot be deemed to have an “special and obvious chemical effect” as compared to the comparable invention 1.

(A) In light of the above determination, it is not possible to determine whether the legislative effect of the instant Claim No. 3 is significant compared to the comparable invention No. 1. However, the following is complementaryly examined: (a) the legislative effect of the instant Claim No. 3 invention is significant compared to the comparable invention No. 1.

(D) Determination as to the decision

① Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The tropigquerel contains an methylter in the chemical structure, and when reaction with strong acids or strongalacquerel, this part can be easily added and decomposed. Thus, in ordinary technicians, in order to salt cropigrels, it is easy for them to choose sulfuric acid as a salt formation system of the Cropigrel, since it is easy for them to choose sulfuric acid as a kind of cropigrel.

(C) The Clopiggrel is a drug that is very difficult to form salt, among them, as the clopidogrel was tested to manufacture salt by using 43 kinds of clopidogrels, but among them only 7 kinds of clopidogrels, including clopidogrels, form solid salt.

According to the standard statistical data in 1974, it is very rare in terms of salt as it is only 0.25% in the range of the total clopidoggrels of drugs, and it is very rare in terms of salt, and it is merely 3.3% in terms of sulfur, and there is technical difficulty in selecting sulfuric acid as a salt formation product of Clopidogggggrel.

In order to make the clofaggbell salt, it is essential to use the clofa to keep the clofa to the final moment when the clofag is obtained, and to continuously respond to the clofagbagba, so it is difficult to form salt in comparison with other salt.

The egropiggrel glass is a human resources that can attract the hydrogen of the 3rd Agroggbrogrel, so it has strong tendency of Ragane. The 3rd Agrogs are stable because the 3rd Agrogs grow from the center, by accepting the hydrogen temperature of sulfur acid and forming sulfur hegrogsium.

2) Determination

The effect of the determination with respect to the instant Claim Nos. 3 invention is to make it easy to manufacture a chemical development product by determining clopiggrel glass salt, which is an erroneous substance that is difficult to refined. However, the instant Claim Nos. 3 invention cannot be deemed to have "special and significant effects" compared to the instant Claim Nos. 1, since the instant Claim Nos. 3 invention has no "special and significant effects" inasmuch as the compound manufactured by the practicable process is calculate, and the instant Claim Nos. 3 invention can not be deemed to have the same effect by forming "bloging white decision."

(C) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the nonobviousness should be recognized because the Plaintiff selects sulfuric acid as a salt formation system to dratize Clopigrel and there is technical difficulty in salt formation itself.

Pursuant to each description (including each number) of evidence Nos. 10, 11, and 18, sulfur acid is well melted, it is easy to melt and treat them with low prices, and because it is one of the melting factors existing in the human body, so it is not likely to cause toxicity, and thus, it is a salt formation agent using the highest quantity in the following chlorate, as it is a chlomatic substance, such as Clovedoggggggggggrels, and it is necessary to form salt using a acid. Since most of the various kinds of acids forming salt and salt well, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that pKa is low, sulfur, blorate, and brogic acid, and all of the compounds described in comparable invention Nos. 1 are deemed to have the highest chlorate and blogic acid, and thus, it cannot be recognized that it is ordinarily deemed to have the maximum chlorate in the invention of this case.

(E) Determination on Incarceration (Expropriation)

1. Parties’ assertion

The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) Clopiggggggggquerel salt is 1,000 g/ml with the accommodation limit of 1,00 g/ml, and the Rabric acid salt 23.8 g/ml, Clopigggggggrel salt of comparable invention 1 is remarkably superior compared to 162 g/ml.

2) Since the clopiggrel clorates in relation to accommodation are related to the development of pharmaceutical products, animal testing, etc., it is important to determine whether large quantities of drugs can be melted in water, and there is no relation to whether small quantities of drugs are fully melted in water.

3) If human resources between the molecules of a chemical are strong and melted for the same reason, it is difficult to melt the water for the same reason. Even though Clopiagbecquerels are high melting above 180cc (the highest melting point out of the specific divers of optical dysium, it is very special phenomenon that melting dys are higher than other salt.

(B) Summary of Defendant A Group’s assertion

1) Clopiggggque Clorates are hH of water melting water, and melting of melting water. As such, melting of excessive water would increase the level of melting. As such, melting of excessive water would increase the capacity of confinement, however, 20mgs, 200mgs, etc. when making dosages of small amount, it would result in Myanmar, instead of green areas.

2) As for the drugs to be administered in light of the foregoing, the degree of melting in the mountain solution of PH1.2, which is the melting solution in the above (mentioned), the degree of melting in heavy water is important, and there is no meaning in terms of melting in light of the above amount of conditions (pH 1.2.37 ml, the volume above 250ml, the maximum amount per 300ml, the maximum amount per hour per 300ml, and the fire extinguishing time, the maximum amount per 2 hours per 300ml, which takes into account the fire extinguishing time). Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the acceptance of clopigggrels and sulfuric acid infection is remarkable since all of the free salt of the dynas and the dynas are 100% or more of the total amount of dyp.

(2) Conditions of experiment.

The degree of acceptance is different in accordance with the test conditions, such as the type of the paper, the pH of the paper, the temperature of the paper, the passage time, whether the tester is shaking or converging, and the time and the method of determining the volume of the paper. Thus, even if the same substance is the same, the degree of acceptance may vary in accordance with the test conditions.

(b) Article 5 of the Korean Pharmacopoeia approved as the test criteria for raw materials in the technical field of the patented invention of this case (Evidence B No. 16, Eul No. 29, and No. 36) provides that the method of evaluating the acceptance of raw materials for drugs (materials) shall be the test of assessing the acceptance thereof, and Article 5 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act provides that “in the case of solids of drugs, the degree of melting them within 30 minutes when mixing them with 30 seconds for every five minutes,” which falls under the notification of the Korea Food and Drug Administration of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Evidence B No. 14) shall be stated in the standard of raw materials and the method of evaluating the acceptance thereof.

In FDA’s “Industrial Guidelines” indicates that it is appropriate to use the standard buffer amount set forth in the USP in the measurement of pH as the basis for determining the acceptance of drugs, which reflects the maximum volume of drugs, pH1-7.5 scope of the said Minister’s mountain, 37°C, the physical temperature, and 250ml of water, and the conditions that reflects the physical temperature’s ionization of drugs, as the basis for determining the acceptance of drugs. Since pH may change by the ionization of drugs, it is appropriate to use the standard buffer amount set forth in the USP in the iondo measurement (this evidence No. 31).

(3) Results of experiments.

Corresponding water

1) According to the results of the experiment conducted by the Seoul University Pharmaceutical Research Institute (hereinafter “Seoul Institute”) and the Korea Chemical Research Institute, in the case of the method of admitting the Korean Pharmacopoeia, the degree of melting in the water in the water of the Clopidogggrels and the chemical formula (Ⅰ) of comparable invention 1, comparable invention 1, the chemical formula (I), the dlopig salt and Clopiggggcrel salt (Evidence 7, Eba) of the instant Claim 3, is as follows (Evidence 41).

In the table (m/ml) unit (m/ml) Clopidoggrel Clorate Clopidogrel chlorate Clopidogrel chlorate Clopidogggggrel Clorate Clorate Culggggrel 162.8 【 0.688 【 162.82.82 【 14.41 【 14.65 ± 134.98 Korea Chemical Research Institute 27.8.1628, Aug. 1, 162

2) Meanwhile, there is a tendency of melting 2 of the instant Claim Nos. 3 in each of the pH with low melting water. In the event that a large quantity of heavy water is put in at one time, water pH appears to be lower than 900m/m, and pH of melter at the time of completion of experiments is 0.8. However, there is a nature not in green area within 5 pH fixed 7 pH (hH7). In addition, 2000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000))))))000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

On the other hand, the chemical formula (Ⅰ) of comparable inventions 1 【 0.88 【 0.68 (mg/ml) from water and Clopidocrel salt salt 【 162.82 【 14.41 (mg/ml) from water. Thus, both inventions have a big difference in the acceptance in the case of inserting a large capacity from water in the middle water.

(C) Incarceration in the artificial value and the amount of charge

1) The test result submitted by Defendant A Group

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 인공장액(pH6.8)(mg/ml) 인공위액(pH1.2)(mg/ml) 라세미체 염산염 0.12 28.8 클로피도그렐 염산염 0.12 535 클로피도그렐 황산수소염 14.31 724

[Report of Eul evidence 28 of this Act and the Pharmaceutical Research Institute of Egympis and Egympis (hereinafter referred to as the "Egymb Research Institute】

본문내 포함된 표 ？ ？ 인공장액(pH6.8) 인공위액(pH1.2) 라세미체 유리염기 5.43(ug/ml) 0.44(%) 1255(ug/ml) 103.2(%) 염산염 6.39 0.53 1243 102.9 클로피도그렐 염산염 4.5 0.37 1247 102.8 황산수소염 9.49 0.79 1250 103.6

[Final Report on the Pharmaceutical Development Institute affiliated with the Youngnam University (hereinafter referred to as the "Ynam University")]

2) The results of the experiment conducted by the Egypt Research Institute were measured as “14.31mg/ml” with a clogggggggggl in the human plant amount, but, as seen earlier, the cloggggggggggggggl was low in the cloggggl’s pH level so that the clogggl’s clogl’s clogl’s clogl’s clogl’s clogl’s clogl’s clogl’s clogl’s clogl’s clogl’s cloggl’s clogl’s cloggl’s clogl’s cloggl’s clogl’s clogl’s clogl’s clogl’

(4) Criteria for determination

The expropriation means the nature of what material is melting in water, that is, the nature of the material being melted in water, and the expropriation as a raw material of a drug is related to the aspect of the process of the preparation and absorption in the body when used as a finished product.

Since the acceptance related to the process of the proposal has almost not been required according to the form (mal agents) and the acceptance in the form of body or in the form of refined water may be important (mal agents). Therefore, the acceptance of the raw materials for drugs should be determined by the technical significance in consideration of the possible form of the substance.

In order for a medicine to show its vitality in the human body, it should be absorbed within a certain range of melting, and in order for the medicine to be absorbed in the body, it should be used under the disguiseds and pH conditions of the warden, and meet various requirements, such as blives and blicks, which can be absorbed into blood from the Minister. If the degree of expropriation is too high, there is a problem that the absorption rate of the body falls rather than the decrease due to the decline in the blurity, the drugs should have the acceptance of an appropriate range under the conditions of pH.

Therefore, the acceptance required for the absorption of drugs is more important than that in the refined water that can change the pH value of the melting drug with the melting drug. In particular, in light of the melting style, a drug is absorbed into the above (pH 1-7.5) and the head (pH). As such, the melting level in the long-term PH means the melting level (see, e.g., the purport of the entire pleadings; 24, reference materials for the submission of Defendant A Group and reference materials, referring to the principle of punishment, technology and 25, respectively).

(5) Determination

Definitions in the preparation of medicines

With respect to a sex agents that make a sex or sporessing with a certain form of drug, the acceptance does not have any meaning since it is not necessary to harm the determined source substance in water, and it is not necessary to fully use the liquid agents such as sporess and sporess, or to add an auxiliary agent to sporessing other additives than a pharmaceutical substance. As such, the acceptance in sporessing in sporess are rarely meaningful. In addition, even in the case of medication, since the drugs that require sporesspores, as well as the drugs that require sporesspores, must satisfy the physical size conditions in the human body, it is not meaningful to accept in sporessing.

However, in the specification of the patented invention of this case, the specification of the patented invention of this case is for "use as slumulous active medicine" for the purpose of "use as slumulous active medicine" on the grounds of necessity for accommodation in clopigggrel sulfur, i.e., only aspects for slumulating, and there is no provision on the necessity for the process, and there is no provision on the necessity for manufacturing, and there is no evidence suggesting the possibility that "flus", which is the plaintiff's medicine made using clopigggrels as the raw material for clopigggggquerels, can be made (

Therefore, although the claim 3 invention of this case is superior to the comparable invention 1, it seems that there is no significant technical significance in the pharmaceutical products.

(B) the significance of the absorption in the living body

1) As seen earlier, pure water acceptance has no special technical significance in terms of biological absorption.

2) Since the clopigggquerels of the instant Claim No. 3 are deemed to have a clopigrel, which is superior to the chemical formula (Ⅰ) of comparable invention No. 1, compared to the chemical formula (I) of comparable invention No. 25 times compared to the chemical formula of comparable invention No. 1, and is superior to approximately 1.3 times to the Clopiggggggquerel salt, a quantitative difference is significant compared to the chemical formula (Ⅰ).

(a)No. 3 contains 7.42 g/lm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm 2, glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm glm 2m glm glm glm glm glm g.

In addition, according to the result of the experiment conducted by the Youngnam Research Institute, the acceptance of the instant Claim No. 3 invention cannot be deemed to be significant since the acceptance of both the Clopidogrel and the chemical formula (I) Llopidog salt and Clopidog salt do not exceed 1%, since the acceptance of the instant Claim No. 3 invention does not exceed 1%.

meaning in case of a cause or other test, etc.

The plaintiff alleged in the above (e) (1) (i) that the acceptance in the water of the instant Claim 3 is based on animal testing. However, in the case of animal testing of the pharmaceutical substance, the absorption level in the living body is important, and the acceptance in the water is not important. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(6) Fixed interest rate

In the instant Claim No. 3, Clopigggrel clorates, which are superior to the Clopigggggrel salt and chemical formula (Ⅰ) of comparable invention 1, but there is no special technical significance in the manufacture of a medicine or in the absorption of the living body of a medicine (the same shall apply even in cases where a small dose is made at the time of injection) in the manufacturing of a medicine or in the absorption of the living body of a medicine (the same shall apply in cases where a small dose is made at the time of injection), the excellence in an artificial sum, and the degree of excellence in an artificial sum, cloggggggggrel salt and chemical formula (Ⅰ) of the comparable invention 1, because there is no special technical significance in that the cloggggggggggrel salt and chemical salt has the adequate accommodation as a raw material of a medicine. Therefore, the significance of

(f) Determination on non-smoking

1. Parties’ assertion

The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) There is no change in water content for more than 96 hours under the extremely high damp condition of 95%, clopigggquerel sulfur, and thus, it is very high resistant compared to comparable invention 1.

2) The condition that Defendant A Group’s assertion “75% relative habits, 40°C custody for at least six months” is “Drug Produt”, i.e., a product made by adding a number of subsidiary components and additives to the active components, is not a condition measuring the non-Smoking of pharmaceutical products at the time of carrying out a stability test on the shape in which the product is packaged in a container closed for the market, and thus, does not have any meaning.

3) As for the basic substance of a medicine, inasmuch as the treatment and storage methods of active ingredients vary depending on the degree of the absorption of active ingredients, it is important to divesability. In particular, chloropiggggrel is more important than 0.5% to ensure that non-sives of active substance should not exceed 0.5% to 1.0% (the U.S. Pharmacopoeia, the European Pharmacopoeia, the criteria for submission of the Food and Drug Administration, and the method of testing) and non-sivesability as it is more important to ensure that the non-sives of active substance should not exceed 0% to 1.0% (the U.S. Pharmacopoeia, the European Pharmacopoeia, the criteria for submission of the Food and Drug Administration, and the method of testing).

4) The salt, such as the instant patent invention, of a medicinal chromatic substance, may cause serious aquatic decomposition by buffering it with respect to the water used for salt, and the salt caused by brut acid, such as salt acid, sulfur acid, and memeral acid, is highly extreme, and the diverrosis, exposed to the determined surface of a drug, is likely to make a strong friendly surface with high chroposomes and cause smoking, and thus, it would normally be anticipated that it would be a hiver, and it would normally be a non-sive or low-siverity compared to the compounds specifically launched in comparison with the compounds specifically launched in comparison with the cited inventions 1.

5) Generally, since the highly accepted salt is highly resistant, it is difficult for a person with ordinary skills to easily predict that the first luminous dyeology of the patent of this case is the highest acceptance while the highest dyeological dyeological dyeology of the patent of this case is an exceptional phenomenon.

(B) Summary of Defendant A Group’s assertion

1) The evidence No. 8, which is the material proving the non-smoking of the instant Claim No. 3, is that Party A measured the non-smoking only from 96 hours (4 days) in the relative 95%, and did not measure the smoking habits for more than that period. The measurement condition stated in the European Pharmacopoeia does not fit “25 ±1 x 80 【2, measuring time 24 hours,” which is the standard for classification of smoking habits used in the technical field of the instant patent invention, due to the measurement condition stated in the European Pharmacopoeia. Thus, the above test result is entirely without any significance.

2) The Patent Publication Gazette 2005-009445 (No. 1) and the Patent Publication 2007-0094230 (the reference materials submitted by Defendant A Group 29) indicate that the sulfur oxygen infection of the instant Claim 3 is not excellent.

3) In the experiments conducted at the Seoul Alternative Research Institute, the Korea Chemical Research Institute, the Youngnam Research Institute, and the research institute, the sulfur oxide was found to be less resistant or less resistant in both dysium and the dysium dysium hysium, and salt was found to be highly resistant in both dysium and hysium hysium hysium hysium hysium.

4) Smoking depends on the size, type of determination, temperature conditions, and habiting conditions of a person to be admitted, and thus, a specific type of determination, but the materials of smoking in a specific condition are not sufficient to give a heat of smoking, solely on a specific type of determination, and on a specific condition, with regard to sulfur oxide in paragraph 3 of this case.

5) According to the European Pharmacopoeia, the smoking habits does not need to be strictly interpreted and must be stated, and it is merely reference matters that do not require special attention, except in the case where the classification of smoking habits itself is extremely broad, strong and strong, and is only a case where it is not subject to special attention. In addition, even according to the "Examination Regulations of Standards for Drugs, etc." (No. B. 14 and No. 6), the nature, such as the degree of the use of raw materials and the degree of the smoking, etc. of drugs, constitutes "where it is in need of identification and in case of emergency when it is used," and among them, the smoking habit does not require a separate entry, and it does not require a separate entry, and thus, it cannot be the basis for the recognition of inventive step.

(2) Conditions of experiment.

According to the purport of Eul evidence No. 34 and the oral argument, the "EUA" used as a standard for smoking a raw material of a drug between an ordinary engineer in the technical field of the patented invention of this case means that "......... the temperature condition of the drying machine shall be applied to 25 ±1 x 25 x 1 x, and damp shall be left unattended for 24 hours after fixing it to 80 ±2 %)," and the classification criteria for the measured absorption result of the measured absorption, "niveness" is a liquid by absorbing water, and is very resistant: 15% or more of the quality increase rate; 2% or more but less than 15% and less than 15% of the quality increase rate; d........ the examination is conducted with respect to the test rate of less than 20% of the quantity of the invention in this case.

(3) Results of experiments.

Of the materials submitted by the Plaintiff to prove the non-smoking of the Claim 3 invention of this case, the evidence Nos. 7 and evidence No. 5 (the first report of August 20, 2007 by the Seoul Research Institute), Eul's evidence No. 41 (the result of the experiment by the Korea Chemical Research Institute) are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 조건 라세미체 염산염(수분증가율 %) 클로피도그렐 (수분증가율 %) 염산염 황산수소염 서울대연구소 25℃, 82%, 24시간 6 4.8 0.3 흡습성 흡습성 약간흡습성 한국화학연구원 25℃, 80%, 24시간 1.1 1.4 0.0 약간흡습성 약간흡습성 비흡습성

(The result of the experiment conducted by the Seoul Research Institute is the conversion of the line to an appropriate numerical value, and there may be a little error).

(4) Markets

A) In comparison with the chemical formula (Ⅰ) of comparable invention 1 and the chemical formula (I) of comparable invention 1 with chlopidoggrel, and the chemical formula (I) of comparable invention 1, non-Smoking or little smoking habits: as a little absorption or smoking habit, it is merely the difference of 1 grade out of the smoking grade of the fourth stage classified by the European Pharmacopoeia. In particular, according to the experiment result of the Korean Chemical Research Institute, both are in the highest grade (less than 2 per cent) among the above classification classification, and it cannot be said that there is a significant difference in quality first.

B) The term “hygrostopy” is a kind of smoking or melting phenomenon that occurs in the air by absorbing into a powder, which may cause physical and chemical stability problems, such as weakening liquidity, soliding, coloring, and problems in storage, depending on the structure of the pharmaceutical substance in the event that the pharmaceutical substance absorbs water. In addition, the combinedness can be improved only when a certain degree of amount is required in the process of refining the raw material in the end of the powder, and it may be easy to achieve an excessive absorption. In addition, it may cause various problems depending on the degree of smoking, such as sub-treatment or melting. Moreover, the manufacturing process of the pharmaceutical substance, such as refined medication, is extremely low, and it is difficult to set the maximum number of materials for the pharmaceutical process at the 2nd stage, and it is difficult to set the manufacturing process of the pharmaceutical substance at the 4th stage as a whole, and thus, it is difficult to see the maximum number of problems according to the degree of smoking.

Due to the above smoking characteristics in the process, the European Union also prescribes the conditions and classification criteria for the absorption, but does not stipulate them as an item that must be stated (Article 34). (B) The Review Regulations of the Standards and Test Method of Drugs, which fall under the notification of the Korea Food and Drug Administration under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (Evidence 14) also stipulate the criteria for raw materials and test method of drugs under Article 5 as "in case of use, matters to be identified and matters to be dealt with when using," without stipulating separate items, "in case of use, matters to be identified and matters to be referred to as "in case of use," and is included in the safety items corresponding to the reference matters. In addition, the test criteria for the stability test of drugs, etc. (Evidence 15) are not presented, but only the test criteria for the smoking is presented.

In light of the above circumstances, the difference between the two cannot be said to have a significant significance in the register, since the clopiggggrel sloak salt and Clopigggrel chlorates, chemical formula (Ⅰ), and so on, the chemical formula (I) are all the raw materials of the pharmaceutical, and the two have an adequate and adequate level of non-smoking.

C) Therefore, the instant Claim 3 invention is deemed to have a certain degree of non-smokingness compared to the chemical formula (Ⅰ) of comparable invention 1, but is not significant, and there is no special technical significance as well as the difference, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the effectiveness of the instant Claim 3 invention is significant in non-smoking.

(g) Fixedness

The chemical effects of the instant Claim No. 3 invention, which is recognized as a result of the experiment performed after the application for the patent invention, are not indicated in the specification of the instant patent invention, and cannot be recognized as the effects of the instant Claim No. 3 invention in determining inventive step because ordinary technicians could not have predicted through the specification. Moreover, in addition, it cannot be recognized as the effects of the instant Claim No. 3 invention in determining inventive step because of the lack of a quantitative difference compared with the chemical formula (I) of the comparable Invention 1, dynaminium salt and Clopidocrel salt, or there is a quantitative difference, and thus, it is not possible to recognize a

C. Sub-committee

The instant Claim No. 3 invention is not specifically initiated in the comparable invention 1, and thus its newness cannot be denied, but its inventive step cannot be recognized as not being obvious compared to the comparable invention 1, and its registration should be invalidated.

9. Determination as to each invention of this case Nos. 4 and 5

A. The assertion of the party's intention

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

Each of the inventions of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this case is not specifically initiated in comparable inventions 1, and is considerably excellent in pharmacological effects, toxic effects, and diversative effects, and thus newness and non-obviousness are recognized.

(2) Summary of the defendants' assertion

(가) 비교대상발명 1의 실시예 10에 개시된 라세미체 브롬산염은 우선성 광학이성질체의 브롬산염과 좌선성 광학이성질체의 브롬산염의 혼합물이고, 그 우선성 광학이성질체는 이 사건 제4항 발명의 클로피도그렐 브롬산염과 비교하여, R이 -CH₂CH₃로서 탄소수 1개만 다른 것으로서 실질적으로 동일한 범주에 속하므로, 비교대상발명 1에 구체적으로 개시된 것으로서 신규성이 인정되지 않는다.

(B) Blorisome of Cloridoggrels, the invention of the instant Claim 4, and Cloridoggggrels of Cloridoggggrels, the invention of the instant Claim 5, are deemed to have the pharmacological effect and toxicity effect compared to Lloriggggggrel infections publicly known in comparable Invention 1, and cannot be deemed to have the efficacy of an invention in the determination of inventive step because there is no indication of the excellence of clorigggggggggggrels in the specification, and even if there appears an excellent result in accordance with the testing conditions, the inventive step cannot be recognized.

B. Determination on the similarity of the Claim 4 invention of this case

(1) Whether a literal commencement is commenced or not

갑가 제5호증의 기재에 의하면, 비교대상발명 1의 실시예에는 일반식(Ⅰ)에 포함되는 21종의 화합물의 제조예가 구체적으로 기재되어 있고, 그 중 화학식(Ⅰ) 라세미체에 해당하는 R이 CH₃이고, X가 2-Cl인 화합물의 염산염은 기재되어 있으나(실시예 1, 유도체번호 1), 나아가 클로피도그렐 브롬산염 또는 화학식(Ⅰ) 라세미체의 브롬산염은 명시적으로 기재되어 있지 않다.

In addition, the specification of the comparable invention 1 is defined as YH, OR, etc. among the compounds of general formula (Ⅰ), X is defined as hydrogen, rolog, halog, or low-sufficiency, etc. In the case of OR, there is a statement to the effect that YOR may form additional infections with weapons or organic acid permitted in the medicine, but it is desirable among the above cromatics, and there is no stipulation to what kind of weapons or organic acids suitable for specific ventilation, and it cannot be deemed that the cropicquerele or chemical formula (Ⅰ) is initiated.

(2) Whether substantial commencement has been commenced

피고 가그룹은 이 사건 제3항 발명의 클로피도그렐 브롬산염은 비교대상발명 1의 일반식(Ⅰ) 라세미체 브롬산염과 실질적으로 동일한 물질이므로 비교대상발명 1에 실질적인 개시가 있다는 취지의 주장을 하므로 살피건대, 비교대상발명 1의 명세서에는 이 사건 제4항 발명인 클로피도그렐 브롬산염과 가장 근사한 화합물로는 치환기 R이 CH₂-CH₃이고 X가 2-Cl인 화합물(실시예 10)이 기재되어 있을 뿐인데, 이는 이 사건 제4항 발명의 클로피도그렐 브롬산염과 비교하여 모핵은 동일하고, 치환기(R)만이 메틸기 대신 에칠기로 대체된 것으로서 클로피도그렐 브롬산염과는 탄소수 1개의 차이가 있다. 그러나 비교대상발명 1의 혈소판 응집저해 작용 및 항혈전 작용에 관한 실험결과에 의하면, 아래 표에서 보는 바와 같이, 모핵이 동일하고 치환기의 탄소수 1개 차이밖에 없는 화학식(Ⅰ) 라세미체 염산염(유도체번호 1)과 비교대상발명 1의 라세미체 브롬산염 사이에는 약리효과에 있어서 상당한 차이를 보이므로, 모핵이 동일하고 치환기에 탄소수의 차이가 1개밖에 차이가 없다고 하여 실질적으로 동일한 물질이라고 볼 수 없다.

Table 1 / [Attachment 1] ADP / 13 x 94 ± 103 x 103 x 66 / [Attachment 2] 13 x 13 x 14 x 66 / [Attachment 2] x 14 x 14 x 03 x 14 x 03 x 140.03 x 103 x 250.03 x 160.07 / 4 / 13 mp. m. g./ g./ g./ g. g. g. d. g. d. d. d. d. f. d. d. 51 ± 10 3005.98 【 9.9.9. 9. 9. 9.2005

Therefore, it is difficult to view the Clogggrel brogrel CD infection of the instant Claim Nos. 4 as a substance substantially identical to the Rag-mar brogin infection of the general formula (Ⅰ) compound No. 1 in comparison with the instant Claim No. 4. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant Claim No. 4 was practically

(3) Fixed interest rate

Therefore, the instant Claim No. 4 invention does not have a literal or substantial commencement in comparable inventions 1, and thus, its originality cannot be denied by comparisond Invention 1.

C. Determination as to the inventive step of each invention of Nos. 4 and 5 of the instant case

(1) Criteria for determination

According to the specification of the patented invention of this case, each of the inventions of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this case has pharmacological effects and toxicity effects, such as the invention of paragraph 3 of this case, with clopidogggggggggggrel, and it has sporessive effects, such as unconstitutionality, acceptance, and non-Smoking.

Therefore, as examined in paragraphs (1) and (2) above, in order to recognize the inventive step of the inventions described in paragraphs (4) and (5) of the above 8-B, the chemical formula (Ⅰ) that has been specifically launched in comparable inventions 1 should be recognized even in some of the pharmacological effects, toxicity effects, and pharmaceutical effects, as seen in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the above 8-B.

(2) Determination on the pharmacological effect

(A) Claim 4 invention of this case

The specification of the instant patent invention does not fully state the result of the experiments related to the cropiggrel bromosome 25990D, and the test results related to the hiverosis effects of the instant patent invention. Thus, it cannot be confirmed that the instant Claim 4 invention has any effect compared to the comparable invention, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, in the pharmacological effect, the identity of the instant Claim 4 invention cannot be recognized.

(B) Claim 5 invention of this case

According to the experiment results (see the following table) stated in the specification of the instant patent invention, it can be seen that the instant Claim Nos. 5’s clopidoggrel liver effect and anti-diver effect are excellent 1 to 1.6 times when the same quantity of salt is administered compared to the chemical formula (Ⅰ) of comparable invention 1 in comparison with the chemical formula (I) of comparable invention 1.

However, as seen in Section 8-b.(3) above, it is difficult to recognize the significant effect of the invention of Section 5 of this case on the invention of Section 5 of this case, since it is within the scope that ordinary technicians can have predicted in light of the relationship between the dynasium and the dynasium, which shows an excellent pharmacological effect twice as much as the chemical formula (Ⅰ) dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium lynasium lynasium lynasium lynasium

Table Ⅱ attached Table Ⅱ] 3.84 3.84 25 0.05 7.60 60.01 69 60.01 60.01 60.660 7.605 7.8608 1 0.605 086.7 40,005 40.84 40.84 0.84 40,005 7.00 7.69 0.01 / 3.000 / 3.84 44 0.04 0.64 001 / 6000 / 60.01 / 1608 08.608 16.608 08.608 16.47.508000,000 10.7400 0.74,001

(iii)toxic effects and treatment coefficient;

(A) Claim 4 invention of this case

According to Part IV of the specification of the instant patent invention, the LD50 of CSS 2590D of CSS 25990D of the instant Claim No. 4 invention is 4268, while the LD50 of CSS 1’s CSS 2590A of comparable invention No. 1 is 4316, it cannot be said that the instant Claim No. 4 invention is excellent in toxicity.

In addition, since the chemical formula (Ⅰ) LD50 of LDR 409 of LD50 of LDR (PC 4099) of LD5 is 1615, it can be seen that Clopiaggggrel bropiblorate is a low toxicity of approximately 2.6 times. However, it cannot be found that Clopigggggggggrel bropiblorates are more excellent than chemical formula (Ⅰ) in the pharmacological effect. Thus, it cannot be found that it is more than approximately 2.6 times in the toxic effect closely related to the pharmacological effect, solely on the basis that it is excellent about 2.6 times in the pharmacological effect.

(B) Claim 5 invention of this case

The specification of the instant patent invention does not fully state the result of the experiment related to acute toxicity of Cloagggbecquerel Clogrobrate (SR 25990E). Thus, it cannot be found that the instant Claim 5 invention has any effect compared to the comparable invention, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, in the toxic effect, the specification of the instant patent invention cannot recognize the substantial nature of the instant Claim 5 invention.

(4) Determination as to the removal effect

(A) Whether a description of substantial effect is written

As examined above 8. b.(5)(c), the specification of the instant patent invention does not state that the technical effects of the instant invention Nos. 4 and 5 are remarkably superior to the effects of the same quality possessed by the comparable invention 1, and thus, the excellence of the technical effects asserted by the Plaintiff exceeds the scope of the effects recognized and completed by the inventor. Thus, the effects of the instant invention Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be recognized as the effects of each of the instant inventions, but we examine as to whether the technical effects of each of the instant inventions Nos. 4 and 5 are significantly superior to the cited invention No. 1.

(B) Determination as to the decision

In the instant case, the effect of the determination with Clopiggrel bloricle 205 of the instant Claims Nos. 4 and 5 is to be easily made of the pharmaceutical products by determining the Clopiggggcrel glass salt, which is an erroneous substance difficult to be refined. However, in the instant Claims Nos. 4 and 5, each of the instant Claims Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be deemed to have "special and significant effect" compared to the comparable Invention 1.

(C) Determination of acceptance

(1) Results of experiments.

(A) Incarceration in water (Evidence A or 7, B or 41)

본문내 포함된 표 단위(mg/ml) 클로피도그렐 라세미체 염산염 클로피도그렐 염산염 클로피도그렐 브롬산염 클로피도그렐 타우로콜린산염 서울대연구소 23.88±0.68 162.82±14.41 33.14±1.43 48.47±3.73 한국화학연구원 27.8 162.8 43.7 ？

(B)compactivity (A evidence No. 27,28) in the amount of artificial value and the amount of length;

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 인공장액(pH6.8)(mg/ml) 인공위액(pH1.2)(mg/ml) 라세미체 염산염 0.12 28.8 클로피도그렐 염산염 0.12 535 클로피도그렐 브롬산염 0.13 49

(A)The examination report of the research institute)

본문내 포함된 표 ？ ？ 인공장액(pH6.8) 인공위액(pH1.2) 라세미체 유리염기 5.43(ug/ml) 0.44(%) 1255(ug/ml) 103.2(%) 염산염 6.39 0.53 1243 102.9 클로피도그렐 염산염 4.5 0.37 1247 102.8 브롬산염 4.36 0.36 1245 103.1

(Final Report of Yong-Nam Research Institute)

(2) Determination

A) In the water of the instant Claims Nos. 4 and 5, the accommodation in the water of the instant Claim Nos. 1 and 5 is rather heated than the Clobaggbecquerel salt of comparable invention 1, and is superior to approximately 1.4 times to 2 times the Llobane salt of comparable invention 1. However, as seen in the foregoing Claim No. 8. 8.b. (5)(e), there is no special technical significance in the water of the raw material for pharmaceutical products in terms of convenience in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products and in the absorbing of the living body of the pharmaceutical products.

B) Expropriation of the instant Claim 4 invention in the artificial high level is superior to the chemical formula (Ⅰ) of comparable invention 1, but as seen in Article 8-b.(5)(e) of the aforementioned Act, all of the materials of both inventions meet the necessary solution in light of the purpose of the invention, and thus, there is no significance in terms of absorption in the body. Moreover, in the artificial high level, it cannot be deemed that the degree of acceptance with the materials of comparable invention 1 is similar to the materials of comparable invention 1.

C) Therefore, each of the inventions in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this case cannot be deemed as significantly superior to the comparable invention 1.

(D) Determination on non-smoking

(1) Results of experiments.

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 조건 화학식(Ⅰ) 라세미체 염산염 (수분증가율 %) 클로피도그렐 (수분증가율 %) 염산염 브롬산염 타우로콜린산염 서울대연구소 25℃, 82%, 24시간 6 4.8 6 8.5 흡습성 흡습성 흡습성 흡습성 한국화학연구원 25℃, 80%, 24시간 1.1 1.4 0.3 ？ 약간 흡습성 약간 흡습성 약간 흡습성 ？

(The result of the experiment conducted by the Seoul Research Institute is the conversion of the line to an appropriate numerical value, and there may be a little error).

(2) Determination

According to the result of the above experiment, the clopigggrel brologosis and the liveness of the Claim No. 4 invention in this case, and the liveness of the liveness of the liver salt and the liverness of the liver salt of comparable inventions 1, all of the liverity of the liver salt and the liverability of the liver salt of comparable inventions 1, are the same grade (e.g., smoking or little siverability) on the basis of the European Pharmacopoeia.

(e) Fixedness

Each of the inventions described in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this case cannot be recognized as a distinguishedness of diversative effects compared to comparable inventions 1.

D. Sub-committee

In each of the instant Claims 4 and 5, newness cannot be denied because the invention does not specifically commence in the comparable invention 1, but the inventive step is denied since the inventive step is not recognized as not having a significant effect compared to the comparable invention 1, the registration should be invalidated.

10. Determination as to each of the inventions of this case

A. Novelty and inventive step of the instant Claim 6 invention

(1) Contents of Claim 6 invention of this case and comparable inventions

The claim 6 invention of this case is about the manufacturing method of Clopidoggrel, which consists of ① formation of luminously active acid and chemical formula (Ⅰ), ② repeating the purification of its salt until products with a certain luminous power are obtained, ③ favorable erogic erogic erogic erogic erogic erogics from salt by salt.

The comparable invention 2 pertains to the method of obtaining luminous active substance by separating or dividing the LAS. The reaction of salt-Formation acid-chlorate is important as a optical division method satisfactory to the majority of the cases (No. 2 evidence, No. 18-23 of the left part of the No. 2725), Cambodia-10-Nphone acid, 3-Bromoff-9-Nphone acid, etc. is commenced as a divided product of a compound with an Agrogate (No. 2 evidence, No. 4 of the No. 2729). The results of using an Agrometric tonnage as a preliminary experiment to divide the Agroto acid are stated [No. 2 evidence, No. 2726].

The comparable invention 3 is related to the method of manufacturing bennasium, which can be seen as luminous agents in light of the nature of the bennasium. According to the detailed description of the invention, the above bennasium is indicated to the effect that: (a) the foregoing bennasium is a usual method of dividing the bennasium into bennasium; (b) it is possible to separate it into cennasium by forming the bennasium, such as Cambodianopic acid or Dennasium; and (c) it is possible to divide it into cennasium by selectively determining it as an appropriate cennasium (e.g., evidence 3; 6 to 4 bennasium, the left-hand side of the 703th page).

(2) Preparation for Claim 6 invention of this case and Invention 2 and 3 of comparable Invention 2 and

Inasmuch as the instant Claim 6 invention is an invention of the method of manufacturing the substance called Clopiggrel, it consists of three elements, namely, “precursor, treatment means and target substance.” If comparison between the instant Claim 6 invention and the instant Claim 3, the instant Claim 6 invention is a method of luminous partitioning off from the chemical (I), the priority of the clopidoggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggs from the dys of the bentggggggggggggggggggggggs, the treatment method is different from the basic material and target substance in that it is a method of acquiring optical properties for the purpose of preventing salt purification by repeating the ruling of salt.

Thus, in order to manufacture the Cloridogrelggrels from the Lloritha, the method of comparable invention 2 and 3, which is the method of publicly announcing the luminous nature body from Llorithatha before the patent application, is merely the method of using the same as it is, barring any special circumstance, its technical significance cannot be recognized.

(3) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that the patentability of the manufacturing method is naturally recognized inasmuch as the instant Claim 6 invention pertains to the manufacturing method of the Clopidogggrel of the instant Claim 1 invention, so long as the patentability of the Clopigggggggggrel is recognized as its target material, the patentability of the manufacturing method is also acknowledged. As examined in the newness and inventive step of the instant Claim 1 invention, as seen in the instant Claim 6 invention, the Clopigggggggrel, which is the target material of the instant Claim 6 invention, is publicly known by comparable Invention 1, and thus its patentability

(B) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that, prior to the filing of the instant patent application, various methods, such as enzymmetrics, chemical symmetrics, chemical symmetrics, symmetricsymmetrics, and symmetrics extractions, etc. are publicly known, but whether a method among the above large methods, which should be selected, is capable of manufacturing cropigrels, which are compounds of the instant patent invention, cannot be known until conducting an actual experiment, and it is difficult to select the manufacturing method of the instant Claim 6 invention from the comparable inventions 2 and 3, which are described only in the general method to separate dyms.

In order to be deemed technical difficulty in choosing a method of separating balthic body from dalthic body, chemical formula (Ⅰ), it should be recognized that the separation method of the instant Claim 6 invention would not be used generally even if it was publicly announced or would not be used if it is an ordinary technician due to the special structure of the chemical formula (Ⅰ). However, according to the written evidence Nos. 4 and 5, Eul, or evidence Nos. 14 and 15, it can be known that the balthic body of the instant Claim 6 invention is widely known, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(4) Preparation results

Inasmuch as the instant Claim 6 invention can easily be made by a person with ordinary skills from comparable inventions 2 and 3, the nonobviousness of the invention is not recognized.

B. Novelty and inventive step of each of the inventions in paragraphs 7 through 9 of this case

(1) Each of the inventions in paragraphs 7 through 9 of this case is subordinate claims that more specifically limit the technical composition of the inventions in paragraph 6. Paragraph 7 of this case is limited to dynamic Cambodia-10-Nphone acid in terms of luminous active acid, which is a salt-making product, and Claim 8 through 9 inventions are limited to archic tons, respectively, as adjudication purification sheet and salt formation sheet.

However, the comparisond Invention 2 begins to use the Cambodia-10-Slphone acid as a solvent for the composition of salt, so the invention of paragraphs 7 through 9 of this case is nothing more than the publicly known technology.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiff is using a number of optical partitionss prior to the filing of the patent application of this case, and as to comparable inventions 2 and 3, the Plaintiff does not start luminous partitionings which can be applied to the clopigrels as desirable or clopigrels, the Plaintiff asserts that there is difficulty in choosing the subdivisions and solventss to separate the clopiggrels, and thus, as seen earlier, it is difficult to do so. Accordingly, according to each description of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 and Nos. 14 and 15 in the relevant technical field prior to the filing of the patent application of this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and therefore, it can be seen that in the relevant technical field prior to the filing of the patent application of this case, it is a optometrics which are a blothometrics forming salt in the relevant technical field.

(3) Accordingly, each of the inventions described in paragraphs (7) through (9) of this case may easily be claimed from comparable inventions 2 and 3 by a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field, so the inventive step cannot be recognized.

11. Determination as to each invention of this case No. 10/11

A. Paragraph (10) invention of this case

(1) The parties' assertion

(A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

① Invention 1 does not have to confirm the optical activity of a certain compound by separating the luminous substance from the luminous substance; it does not start the method of accurate separation of the luminous substance; or did not confirm the pharmacological activity of the separated luminous substance; and it does not indicate any implication on the possibility that there is a difference between the dynasium and the dynasium, the comparable invention 1 cannot be deemed to specifically start the use of the dynasium of the instant patent invention.

② Cloidoggggggggggggggggggggggggrels of each invention of this case, compared to publicly known Llogs, are more active than Llogs congrals that may cause harm to blood congrativity and anti-psychotropic properties, but are less toxic than Llograls, but do not show any serious side effects such as Ragral, unlike Llograls, and thus, are remarkably superior to Llograls.

(3) The mere fact that an ordinary technician can confirm a significant effect of a luminous substance due to a simple repeated experiment cannot deny the apparent effect of such effect.

(B) Summary of the Defendants’ assertion

The instant Claim 10 invention is an invention for the use of a medicine, and since the compound of Claim 1 and its treatment purpose presented as a medical substance are all initiated in comparable inventions 1, newness cannot be recognized.

(2) Preparation for Claim 10 Invention and Invention 1

(A) The instant Claim No. 10 pertains to “Clopidogggggggrels that have the effect of impairing the blood plate and its medicine,” and the instant Claim No. 1 pertains to “the medical creation effective for the treatment and prevention of the blood plate diseases with the characteristics of containing salt (the compound of Claim No. 1),” and the instant Claim No. 1 pertains to “the medical treatment products with general formula (I) compound and the pharmacologically permissible substance, and the activation of the blood plate No. 1, with the activation of the suppression of the blood plate congested and the composition of the psychotropic activation.”

Therefore, both inventions are both inventions for medicinal use, which are the subject matter of general formula (Ⅰ). The use is the same in that both of them is the treatment of dyphomatic diseases through the sulnassis and the activation of anti-bloods. However, the Clopigggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggs

(B) As seen earlier, in order for the instant Claim 10 invention to be granted a patent as a selective invention, the first prior invention does not specifically commence the subordinate concept constituting the selective invention (newness requirement), and the second invention all subordinate concepts included in the selective invention have a different effect from the effects of the prior invention in quality, or falls under a case where there is a significant difference in quantity even if there is no qualitative difference (infinite requirement).

(3) Determination of newness

(A) As examined in Section 6. C. of the above, comparable invention 1 includes not only the use of a pharmaceutical substance, but also the specific experimental data on the pharmacological effect of the chemical formula (Ⅰ), namely, the chemical formula (Ⅰ) among the substances falling under the general formula (Ⅰ). The specification of comparable invention 1 includes not only the use of a pharmaceutical substance, but also the chemical formula (I) chemical formula (I), the pharmacological effect of which is specifically known and subject to the invention.

(B) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the cited invention 1 only starts with the chemical formula (I), and that the result of the experiment is not specified by separating clopidogrels, and that there is no specific commencement of the use of clopidogggrels.

Unless there are special circumstances such as where the pharmacological effect in the specification is clearly revealed before the filing of the application, it can be deemed that the invention satisfies the requirements for the specification at the same time that the invention can be seen as completed only when the specific substance includes a test on which pharmacological data, etc. indicate that it has such pharmacological effect, or where it is possible to substitute it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Hu2846, Oct. 10, 2003; 2003Hu1550, Dec. 23, 2004). As for the invention of use of medicine, the specification of comparable invention 1 does not include clopidoggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggs's's's's effect.

However, prior art provided in the judgment of inventive step of an invention in a patent application is not only clearly expressed the entire technical composition, but also can be compared to the extent that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field can easily grasp the technical content by technical awareness or empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Hu270, Dec. 8, 2000; 2001Hu2702, Dec. 26, 2003; 2004Hu2307, Mar. 24, 2006).

However, the comparable invention 1 contains a detailed description of the chemical formula (I) salt and its use, separate from the specification, and contains the same effect as dyecifine 1 of the dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dyecifine dye.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(C) Fixedness

Inasmuch as the instant Claim 10 invention has commenced all the target materials and uses of the invention in comparison with the cited inventions 1, its newness cannot be recognized.

B. Determination on the Claim 11 invention of this case

The instant Claim 11 invention is a subordinate claim to the instant Claim 10 invention, and is limited to 0.01 to 0.100g of the unit contribution among the composition of the instant Claim 10 invention.

However, the comparison invention 1 starts with chemical formula (Ⅰ) from 0.05 to 0.25g, and its numerical scope overlaps, and there is no indication to recognize the clinical significance due to the above numerical limitation. Thus, inventive step cannot be recognized.

12. Arrangement of the lawfulness of the trial decision of this case

A. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s closing party

In addition to the purport of the argument in the statement No. 3-1 of the evidence No. 3, Defendant Cho Jong-dae filed a trial for invalidation of the patent invention of this case with the Intellectual Property Tribunal No. 2006Da2077, and the trial for invalidation of the patent of this case was filed, and the claim No. 1, 6, or 11 was invalidated, and the trial for invalidation of the patent of this case was not requested with respect to the claim No. 2 through 5, and the trial decision of this case was rendered with respect to the trial for invalidation of all the claims of this case. Thus, the part on the claim No. 2 through No. 5 of the trial decision of this case

B. B. Between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants

The inventions described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (10) of the instant case cannot be recognized as newness by comparisond Invention 1, and each of the inventions described in paragraphs (3) through (5), and (11) cannot be recognized as inventive step by comparisond Invention 1. The inventions described in paragraphs (6) through (9) cannot be recognized as inventive step by comparisond Invention 2 and 3. As such, each of the inventions described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (10) of the instant case’s patent invention cannot be recognized as inventive step by comparisond Invention 2 and (3). Accordingly, as a result, the instant patent application against

13. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant ELD Bioscience is dismissed as illegal, and the part concerning the claim 2 through 5 of the patented invention of this case against the defendant's closing party is accepted as reasonable, and the remaining claims against the same defendant and the remaining claims against the other defendants are dismissed as all are without merit.

Judges Sung-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)