[2] The case holding that the (a) invention cannot be deemed to fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention on the grounds that the elements of the (a) invention cannot be deemed to fall under the equivalent relationship with the elements of the patented invention corresponding to the patented invention, and that there is no room to view that the elements of the (a) invention fall under the patent right

[2] The case holding that the (a) invention cannot be deemed to fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention on the grounds that the elements of the (a) invention cannot be deemed to fall under the equivalent relationship with the elements of the patented invention corresponding to the patented invention, and there is no room to view that the elements of the (a) invention fall under the bypassing invention

1. According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the court below determined that (a) the patent invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as "patent registration number 1 omitted) 1 of the respondent's patented invention (the patent invention of this case") 2 to 4 of the patent claim 7 of this case (hereinafter referred to as "patent invention of this case") is an known one step as an reaction process identical to that of the second step of the patented invention of this case, and (b) the effect of the patent invention of this case is not different from that of the first step reaction 9 and 11 of the first step reaction 1 of the patented invention, and thus, (a) the reaction of the patented invention of this case is no different from that of the first step reaction 1 of the patented invention of this case from that of the patented invention of this case. (b) the reaction of the patented invention of this case is no different from that of the first step reaction 1 of the patented invention of this case from that of the patented invention of this case, but there is no difference between the first step reaction and the first step.

2. (A) The invention falls under the scope of a patent right of the patented invention must be included in the (a) invention in an organic combined relationship between the elements and the elements of the patented invention. However, even if the (a) invention has a substitution or modification of the elements, the solution principle of task is identical in both inventions, even if it is based on such substitution, if it is so obvious that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as a "party") can easily think of the objectives identical to the patented invention, and if the substitution of the elements is based on such substitution, it is obvious that the elements of the (a) invention fall under the technology already known at the time of the application of the patented invention or the publicly known technology that the party could easily make the invention from the known and publicly known at the time of the application of the patented invention, or if the elements of the (a) invention correspond to those known to be excluded from the scope of the patent right through the procedure for the application of the patented invention, they still fall under the scope of the right of the patented invention (200).

3. On this premise, we examine the difference and common features of both inventions.

(1) According to the record, since the material containing the patented invention of this case is included in a considerably broad area, it is necessary to specify the invention most appropriate in comparison with the invention of subparagraph (a). It is necessary to compare with the invention of subparagraph (Ⅱ). It is the CH3COO in the general formula (II), X is the CH3-3 location in terms of nitrogen content, the C-1 location is converted into the rooftop, the C-1 location is converted into the hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, and the 1-2,4-5 location is double combined with the 2-H compound in terms of its final compound (1), the patented invention of this case shall be derived from the 3-H compound (2-H compound) stage by removing the 16-H compound (1), the 17-17-H compound (2-H compound) stage in the same stage as the following reaction formula.

(2) On the other hand, the (A) invention is composed of the stages (16,17-D 2O) from initial acid (CH3ON4) and the stage (16,17-HH) from which a chemical (A) is treated as an initial material (CH3ON4) and from which a chemical (N4OH) is selected by rheculizing 16,17-H (B), compounds (B) is derived from its initial acid (CH3OH) and non-permanent acid (CH3CO2O) in response to the (16,17-D 20). At the same time, a chemical (2) compound is located in the stage (3) stage from its initial chemical (2) stage after recovering the functions of C-20 locations and treating it (C), and a chemical (3) compound is ethyl (3) stage from its initial chemical (2) stage from its initial chemical to its initial chemical (3) stage (3) stage.

(3) Furthermore, in comparison with the invention of this case, both inventions share the following facts: (a) the CO2 process of using the patented invention of this case: (b) the 16,17-D sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere spher.

4. Next, we examine whether the (Ga) invention constitutes the equivalents of the patented invention of this case and whether the judgment of the court below is proper.

(1) According to the records, it is difficult to view that the starting material of the patented invention of this case constitutes a new material that is patented under the claim No. 9 of (Patent Registration No. 2 omitted) (Patent No. 30, May 30, 1994) and that is not known to the time of application for the patented invention of this case or the time of manufacturing the patented invention of this case. Thus, it is difficult to view that it constitutes a case where it is obvious to the extent that the party can easily think about the substitution of the starting material of the patented invention of this case as a starting material

Nevertheless, the court below did not completely examine and determine the requirements for the easiness of refund, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of equal invention in this respect.

(2) In addition, in order to recognize that the operating effect is substantially the same by the above exchange, there should be no substantial difference in the ratio of the final target substance. However, the lower court concluded that the operating effect of the two inventions is substantially identical solely on the basis that there is no difference in the ratio of the intermediate source substance in the first stage reaction. In this regard, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the identity of operating effect.

(3) Furthermore, according to the records, even though it cannot be denied that the fishery hexinium forms a flat form with cancer and aluminium in terms of the amount to be admitted, and even in the reaction invention under subparagraph (a), the main reaction substance in the (a) invention appears to have been made with cancer with which the spherrative heat reaction is possible, and thus, the court below held that the main reaction substance in the (a) invention is the same as the reaction substance for both inventions solely on the ground that the amoma gas exists in the invention under subparagraph (a). In this regard, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations prior to the reaction of the reaction substance.

(4) Meanwhile, according to the records, the reaction that 16 and 17-Nrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrhrrhr

Nevertheless, the court below held that the two inventions are identical to each other on the ground that (a) inventions have such composition, and that (b) inventions have a characteristic element, such as the identity of the composition of the invention and the scope of rights of the patented invention, are erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the identity of the composition of the invention and the scope of rights of the patented invention.

(5) Ultimately, the elements of the invention referred to in subparagraph (a) cannot be deemed to be in an equivalent relationship with the elements corresponding to the patented invention of this case (as seen earlier, there is no room to view that the (a) invention falls under the so-called bypassion invention as seen earlier), and (a) invention cannot be deemed to fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case. Thus, the decision of the court below contains an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the trial decision

Of the grounds of appeal, the part pointing this out is with merit.

5. Therefore, the original decision shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Patent Court corresponding to the original decision. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)