Law Firm (LLC) LLC et al.

Attorney Kim Yong-sub et al.

Attorney Yang Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s participation in the costs of appeal, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.

1. In determining the inventive step of a patented invention by citing various prior art references, the inventive step of the patented invention in question is denied where a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field (hereinafter referred to as a "ordinary technician") can easily be recognized in combination with the above in light of the technical value corresponding to the corresponding patented invention at the time of the application of the patented invention in question, technical common sense, basic tasks in the relevant technical field, development tendency, demand of the relevant industry, etc., such as suggesting that a combination or combination of the cited technologies can be permitted to the relevant patented invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Hu3284, Sept. 6, 2007, etc.).

2. We examine these legal principles and records.

A. Paragraph 1 (1) of the instant patent invention (patent number omitted) of which the title “B” is “a liquid products and liquid displayer (patent number omitted)” refers to the liquid production product used for liquid display devices (L CDs, etc.).

B. The amendment of paragraph 1 of this case consists of at least 1 compound A (1) compound, which is at least one (V-H-3) compound, and at least one (3) compound selected in the group of compounds. Furthermore, the first component is basically one (1) compound selected in the group of compounds expressed in formula (1), and additional (3-H10B (3F)-02) compound and formula (3-H10B (3F, 3F)-2 compound with a view to improving the composition of the foregoing 4 compound, at least one (3-HB (3-HB, 302) compound with a view to improving the composition of the foregoing 1 minute at a rate of 1 minute the following specifications with a view to improving the composition of the 5-HB compound:

E. In the preceding literature (Evidence Nos. 5 and 6) written prior inventions 5, it is difficult to find an association that has the effect of raising an objection to the middle synthetic compound, on the premise of the prior art that it is possible to form a slope angle by adding a composite compound to those of the VA Mod’s liquid compound development products.

F. According to the results of the comparison and experiment submitted by the Plaintiff (Evidence 12 of the A), as a result of the measurement of response time under the same conditions as to the products A, part of P4 compounds and P4 compounds, which were presented in the Prior Invention 5, converted into the 1 through 3 ingredients of the Correction Invention of Paragraph 1 of this case, the response time of P4 compound 18.3ms and the response time of the products A, the response time of the P4 compound 13.0ms and the response time of the products A 28.96% higher than that of the products.

G. If so, there is no particular difficulty in adding synthetic compound to a person with ordinary skills in addition to the composition of VAD’s liquid products. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that a combination of the first and second components in the first and second components in the preceding invention 4 would have been easily predicted without impairing the characteristics of the first and second components in the case of combining the third components in the preceding invention 5. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the effect of third components would have been displayed without impairing the characteristics of the first and second components.

3. The lower court determined as follows. ① The elements 1 and 2 of the instant corrective invention exist in the Prior Invention 4, and the elements 3 exist in the Prior Invention 5, and the difference between the instant corrective invention and the prior invention 4 may be easily overcome by combining the prior invention 4 with the prior invention 5. However, in the instant corrective invention, the prior invention 4 and the prior invention 5 are more excellent than the effect predicted by combining the prior invention 4 and 5, so its authenticity is not denied.

4. Notwithstanding the characteristics of the chemical invention that cannot be predicted by the combination of the prior art of this case, it is somewhat inappropriate to conclude that the combination of the prior invention 5 with the prior invention 4 is easy, on the ground that the prior invention 5 is common, such as the technical field of both parties and the solution subject, etc. However, it is justifiable to conclude that even if the prior invention 4 and 5 are combined, the nonobviousness of the corrective invention of this case is not denied even if the prior invention 5 is combined with the prior invention 4. In addition, in light of the decision of the court below, it is clear that the defendant and the supplementary intervenor also rejected the defendant and the supplementary intervenor's assertion that the inventive step of the corrective invention of this case 1 of this case is denied by combining the prior invention 5 with the prior invention 4 by omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating the logical and empirical rules, or by

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Jung-hwa-hwa