[특허법위반][미간행]
In a case where a utility model has been partially different in its composition by improving the working products of a patented invention supplied by a patentee, or where the working products of a registered utility model have been manufactured and supplied, the case holding that the judgment of the court below which concluded that there was intention of infringement of a patent right is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to
Article 13 of the Criminal Act, Article 225 of the Patent Act
Defendant 1 and one other
Defendants
Suwon District Court Decision 2007No1485 Decided January 8, 2008
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
The lower court determined that Defendant 1 had the intent of patent infringement on the grounds that Defendant 1 had been aware of the existence of the instant patented invention on the grounds that he developed the device of this case as indicated in the lower judgment and subsequently was able to easily register the instant patented invention than that of the patent, Defendant 2 had the intent of patent infringement on the grounds that he continuously produced and supplied the instant device even though Defendant 1 had been aware of the existence of the instant patented invention, on the grounds that there was no substantial difference between the instant patented invention and the instant devices,
However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the court below, that is, Defendant 1's working work of the patented invention of this case supplied by the victim of the patented invention of this case, i.e., the non-indicted 1, the husband of the non-indicted 1, stated the patented invention of this case as a previous technology, and points out the problems in the detailed description of the device of the non-indicted 1, and the device of this case, which is a working work of the patented invention of this case and the non-indicted 1, has some differences in its composition, and it is not easy for ordinary technicians to determine whether the device of this case is in an equal relationship. After the development of the device of this case, it is very difficult for them to consider that the device of this case does not infringe the patented invention of this case, and it is difficult for the defendants to consider that the patent examiner of this case had the previous technology in the detailed description of the device of the non-indicted 1, but the patent Tribunal's decision to maintain the patented invention of this case was made in the previous procedure.
Nevertheless, the lower court, which concluded that the Defendants had the intent of infringement of patent rights solely based on its stated reasoning, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent of infringement of patent rights, or by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting
Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)