The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

In a trial to confirm the scope of a right, if not only the invention subject to confirmation, which is compared with the patented invention, is made only with the publicly known technology, but also can easily be made from the publicly known technology by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art, the invention shall be deemed not to fall within the scope of a patent right without the need to

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Hu710 Decided October 30, 2001, etc.). In light of the nature, function, and comparison of the doctrine on free implementation technology, the foregoing legal doctrine applies to a case where a challenged invention constitutes infringement of the so-called language, which is an organic combination with all elements indicated in the claims of a patent invention, as a result, in determining patent infringement (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Hu366, Nov. 14, 201). The lower court determined that the challenged invention of this case constitutes a free implementation technology which can be easily implemented from prior inventions 1 as indicated in the lower judgment, and thus, does not fall under the scope of right without need to comparison with the patented invention of this case (patent G) named as “D.”

The reason is that both inventions are technology related to the pre-sale method, and the shape of the room is "a plucking, plucking, plucking, etc." while the invention in question is different from "V", the invention in question can not be seen as significantly different operating effects due to the difference of shape as long as the type and nature of the room are the same, and a person with ordinary knowledge in the art can easily derive the invention in question from prior inventions 1.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on free implementation technology, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.