권리범위확인(특)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on February 27, 2014 on the case No. 2775 is revoked.
Judgment ex officio is made.
1. The affirmative confirmation of the scope of a right to the invention registered by the later application, which constitutes the scope of a registered invention by the earlier application, is not permitted in principle, since the affirmative confirmation of the scope of a right to the invention by the earlier application would result in denying the validity of the right before an invalidation adjudication on the registered right becomes final
However, in exceptional cases where two inventions are allowed to seek confirmation of the scope of rights without denying the validity of the registration of the invention subject to confirmation in relation to the use relationship under Article 98 of the Patent Act (see Supreme Court Decision 9Hu2433, Jun. 28, 2002). Meanwhile, in cases where an invention is in relation to a prior patent invention, the subsequent invention falls under the scope of the right of the prior patent invention.
In this context, the term "where two inventions are in a relationship of use" means the case where the subsequent invention adds new technical elements to the technical composition of the prior invention, and the case where the subsequent invention contains a summary of the prior invention, and uses it as it is, but maintains the unity of the prior invention as an invention in the subsequent invention.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Hu522 delivered on August 21, 2001). 2. We examine records in accordance with the above legal principles.
(1) The lower court determined that the invention in question did not fall under the scope of the right to claim 30 (hereinafter “instant Claim 30”) of the instant patented invention (patent registration number E”) on the grounds as delineated below.
① Claim 30 of the instant Claim has a number of holess formed by a certain intervals, depending on the length direction on the two sides opposite to each other. The inner side of the instant Claim 30 has a tintic framework (conform 1), one side of the Hague and the other side’s hinginging of the hinging support framework, which is closely linked to the neglected side.