First, the Defendant produced the original site by simultaneously attaching transparent films to both sides of the original part of the original part of the Defendant’s site production machinery (hereinafter “instant machinery”) as well as attaching transparent films to the original part of the original part of the instant machinery (hereinafter “the same attachment method”), and Nonindicted Party 1 was registered with the Patent No. 24509 on November 16, 1987 as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant patent”), which is the contents of the patented invention on “the method of continuous manufacturing of Alban site” as indicated in the judgment of the court below, which is one of the original parts of the patented invention on “the method of continuous manufacturing of Alban site” (hereinafter “the instant patent”), and did not have produced the site of the crime in the order of attaching transparent films to other parts (hereinafter “net attachment method”). However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that the Defendant produced the site of the crime by continuously attaching the instant machinery as indicated in its reasoning.

Second, the difference between the patent of this case and the machinery of this case is in addition to the above attachment method. ① The patent of this case is a kind of physical substance that is adhered to the two sides of Albi original part, and the machinery of this case is different from each other, ② The patent of this case was passed through two times through the dried original part, and then the machinery of this case passed through two times through the dried part by spreading the dried part on the other side of Albi original part, whereas the machinery of this case goes through two dried parts only once, and ③ the patent of this case contains three dried parts, which are used together, and the defendant did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the patent of this case by misunderstanding that the patent of this case was infringed on the patent of this case and the patent of this case by misunderstanding that the defendant did not have any effect on the patent of this case by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the patent of this case as to "the essential part of the patent application of this case," and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the patent of this case.

2. This Court shall make decisions with respect to them as follows:

A. Determination on the first ground for appeal

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the statement of Non-Indicted 1 and 2 of the trial witness in the second trial records, and the statement of Non-Indicted 3 of the trial witness in the fifth trial records in the trial records in the court of the first instance, it can be recognized that the defendant operated the machinery of this case in the order of attachment and produced the site of the crime in the order of attachment. Thus, the first ground for appeal by the defendant is without merit.

B. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

(1) In general, in order for a certain infringed product to be deemed within the scope of a patent right of a patented invention, an organic combined relationship between each constituent element and the component of the patented invention must be included in the infringed product. However, even if the infringed product is exchanged or modified, if both inventions have the same solution principle in both inventions, and even if they are exchanged, they can achieve the same objective as the patented invention, and show the same effect in the patented invention, and if they are so obvious that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technology field to which the invention pertains can easily think about such substitution, barring special circumstances, such as the exchange of the infringed product through the patent application procedure for the patented invention, is an equivalent relationship with the other component corresponding to the patented invention, and the infringed product still belongs to the scope of the patent right of the patented invention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Hu522, Aug. 21, 2001; 200Hu716, Jul. 1, 2006). 196>

However, in the case of this case, the evidence duly adopted and examined at the original trial and the second trial records of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "this case") are as follows: (i) the statement of Nonindicted Party 1 and 2 and the statement of Nonindicted Party 1 in the fifth trial records of this case are as follows: (ii) the defendant distributed from the machinery of this case to the dynasium is identical to the dynasium; (iii) the patent of this case was installed in the dynasium by spreading dynasium on one side of the dynasium; and (iv) the remaining parts of the dynasium installed in the dynasium are as follows; and (v) the difference between the dynasium and the dynasium installed in the dynasium and the dynasium installed in the dynasium in this case; and (v) the difference between the gynasium and the gynasium constructed in each of this case.

Therefore, if the machinery of this case was operated by the method of successive attachment as stated in the judgment below, barring any special circumstance, the machinery of this case belongs to the scope of the right to the patent of this case, and therefore, the defendant infringed the exclusive license of the patent of this case.

(2) As seen in the summary of the grounds of appeal, the Defendant asserted that, as the applicant of the patent of this case did not formally exclude the “where the applicant of the patent of this case has an equal relationship with the establishment of three licenses in the building room” in the patent application process within the scope of the patent claim of this case, the composition of the machinery of this case cannot be deemed to be in an equal relationship with the patent of this case in accordance with the principle of patent applications, and therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have infringed the patent of this case.

If an applicant excludes any constituent part of the patent application by an amendment, etc. submitted in accordance with the notification of reasons for rejection by the examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office in the course of the patent application, he/she may submit a written opinion on the examiner's unfair reasons for rejection. In addition, an applicant may assert that his/her procedural right is extinguished by reducing the scope of the patent application, and thus, he/she may not extend the scope of the patent application on the ground that the part of the patent application excluded from the amendment is re-equal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Hu171, Sept. 6, 2002; 200Hun-Ba6158, Jun. 22, 2001). This principle applies only to the amendment of the patented invention to overcome new and inventive issue, and it applies only to a case where the scope of the patent application is corrected due to other reasons until the amendment is made in the process of patent application, but it shall be recognized that the applicant is not only an applicant who has presented a new and inventive issue after the amendment.

그러므로 이 사건 특허의 출원인이 특허의 출원과정에서 ‘건조실에 세 개의 센서로울러를 설치한 것과 균등관계에 있는 경우’를 이 사건 특허의 특허청구의 범위에서 의식적으로 제외하였는지의 점에 대하여 보건대, 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들과 당심증인 공소외 1의 이 법정에서의 진술, 당심 제5회 공판조서 중 당심 증인 공소외 3의 진술기재 및 특허공보, 출원심사청구서, 거절이유통지서, 보정서, 의견서, 출원공고결정서, 특허사정서, ‘보정 전, 후를 비교한 명세서’의 각 기재를 종합하면, ① 이 사건 특허의 출원인인 공소외 1이 1985. 2. 11. 최초의 출원심사청구를 한 당시의 이 사건 특허의 ‘발명의 상세한 설명’란에는 “···건조실(6)을 통과한 원지(2)는 센샤(원지자동조절)로울러(8a)를 거쳐 건조실(6)을 재통과한 후 센샤로울러(8b) 및 전도로울러(7)에 의하여 원지(2)의 상, 하면은 위치가 바뀌고 다시 접착제 도포 로울러(3‘)를 지나면서 원지(2)의 이면에도 접착제가 도포되어 건조실(6) 내를 다시 지나면서 이면에 도포된 접착제도 건조시키게 된다. 이렇게 양면에 접착제가 도포된 원지(2)는 일단 건조실(6) 밖의 센샤로울러(8c)를 돌아서 건조실(6)내로 재진입시킨 후 통과로울러(13) 및 안내로울러(9)를 통해 다음공정으로 이송된다.···”라고 기재되어 있었고, 그 ’특허청구의 범위‘란에는 “···접착제 도포로울러(3)에 의해 원지(2)의 앨면을 먼저 도포시킨 다음 건조실(6)을 통하여 건조시킨 후 전도로울러(7)에 의해 원지(2)의 상, 하면의 위치를 바꾼 다음 다시 접착제 도포로울러(3’)를 통과하면서 원지(2)의 이면도 도포하며 다시 건조실(6)을 통과시켜 원지(2)의 양면에 건조된 접착층을 형성하고···”라고 기재되어 있었던 사실, ② 그 후 공소외 1은 1987. 5. 2. 심사관으로부터 ‘본원은 제조 장치에 특징이 있는지 제조 공정에 특징이 있는지가 명확하지 않으며, 특히 하나의 건조실을 사용하는데 따른 작용효과 설명이 미흡하다’는 내용의 거절이유통지를 받자, 출원인 공소외 1을 대리하여 변리사 공소외 4가 1987. 5. 25. 이에 대한 보정서를 제출하면서 ‘발명의 상세한 설명’란의 위 종전 기재 부분을 그대로 둔 채, 그 후단에 “즉, 원지의 양면에 접착제를 도포하는데 있어서 한쪽 면에 먼저 접착제를 도포하여 건조실(6)을 두 번 통과하면서 완전 건조한 다음 로울러(7)에 의하여 원지의 면을 전도하여 별도의 공정에 의하여 접착제를 도포하고 같은 건조실(6)을 두 번 통과시켜서 원지의 양면에 형성된 접착층이 완전 건조됨으로써 종래와 같이 원지를 절곡함으로써 생기는 비능률성과 불정확성에서 오는 작업의 번거로움과 비능률성에서 벗어날 수 있고, 넓은 건조실을 구비할 필요가 없어서 경제적인 것이다”라는 부분을 추가하였고, ‘특허청구의 범위’란의 위 종전 기재부분을 “···원지(2)의 일면을 먼저 도포하고 건조실(6)내를 통과시킨 후 쎈서로울러(8a)를 거쳐서 건조실(6)내를 재통과시켜서 건조한 다음 쎈서로울러(8b)와 로울러(7)에 의해 원지(2)의 상, 하면의 위치를 전도하여 접착제 도포 로울러(3‘)를 통과하면서 원지(2)의 이면도 도포하며 다시 건조실(6)을 통과시키고 쎈서로울러(8c)를 거쳐서 건조실(6) 내를 재통과시켜서 원지(2)의 양면에 건조된 접착층을 형성하고...”로, “연속제조방법”이라고 기재된 부분을 “연속제조장치”로 각 변경한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실들에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 특허의 출원 절차에서 출원인인 공소외 1이 ‘특허청구의 범위’란에 센서로울러 3개를 추가하는 것으로 변경을 가하기는 하였지만, 최초 심사청구 당시에도 ‘발명의 상세한 설명’란에는 나중에 보정에 의하여 ‘특허청구의 범위’란에 추가된 센서로울러에 관한 내용이 이미 기재되어 있었고, 특허심사관이 한 심사거절의 이유도 주로 그 특허발명의 취지가 명확하지 아니하다는 것에 있을 뿐 센서로울러에 관한 내용이 아니었으며, 그에 따른 보정에서 출원인은 센서로울러에 관한 설명은 그대로 둔 채, 단지 하나의 건조실을 2회씩 통과하는 것의 작용상 효과만을 추가적으로 지적하는 데 그침으로써, 최초의 특허청구의 범위에 기재된 기술구성을 치환하거나 그와 다른 수치로 정정하는 형태의 보정이 아니라 새로운 구성을 추가하는 형태의 보정을 하였다고 할 것이고, 따라서 이러한 보정에 의하여 ‘센서로울러가 3개로 구성된 것과 균등관계에 있는 경우’를 특허청구의 범위에서 의식적으로 제외한 것으로 보기 어렵다고 할 것이다.

Ultimately, as seen above, it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted 1’s amendment in the patent application procedure of this case does not interfere with the judgment that there is an equal relation as seen in the above (1). Thus, the Defendant’s assertion on this issue is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the difference arising in the technical composition of the instant machinery and the instant patent, as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, shall be included in or equal to the scope of the instant patent claim. Thus, the machinery of the Defendant infringed the exclusive license of the instant patent invention. In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the Defendant infringed the exclusive license of the instant patent invention is justified, and there is no error of law of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out in the grounds for appeal by the Defendant. Second appeal by the Defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Sung-hun (Presiding Judge)