1. In order for the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit to be deemed that a product manufactured or used by the other party to the patent infringement lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as “infringed product, etc.”) infringes on the patent right of the patented invention, an organic combined relationship between each constituent element and its component stated in the scope of the patent right of the patented invention must be

Meanwhile, even in cases where there are changes in the composition described in the scope of a patent claim for an infringed product, the solution principle for the patented invention and the task is identical, even if such changes result in a substantial effect identical to the patented invention, and if a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”), can easily think, barring any special circumstance, the infringing product, etc. still is equal to the composition described in the scope of the patent claim for the patented invention and still infringes on the patent right for the patented invention.

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

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2007Hu3806 Decided June 25, 2009 and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da65818 Decided September 29, 201). 2. Reviewing the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following circumstances.

(1) Patent registration number of the patented invention of this case as indicated in the judgment below.