The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. In order for the invention to be confirmed in comparison with the patented invention to be within the scope of the right of the patented invention, the organic combination relationship between each element described in the claim(s) of the patented invention and that element should be included in the invention subject to confirmation;

On the other hand, even in cases where there are changes in the composition described in the claims of a patented invention in the challenged invention, if both inventions are identical with the solution principle, even if such changes result in the same effect as the patented invention, and if there is a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, any person can easily think, barring special circumstances, the invention in question is equivalent to the composition described in the claims of the patented invention, and still falls under the scope of rights of the patented invention.

In addition, when determining whether the solution principle of the task is the same in both inventions, part of the composition of the claim does not formally extract from the scope of the claim, but in comparison with the prior art, considering the detailed description of the invention in the specification and the prior art at the time of the application, it is necessary to investigate and determine substantially what is the core of the professional engineer on which the special solution method is based in the patented invention in comparison with the prior art.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the scope of rights cannot be deemed as falling under the scope of the instant patent invention (patent registration number F) that is identical or equal to the claim No. 1 of the instant patent invention (patent registration number F) whose name is “C” in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records.