2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. Patent invention of this case

(a) The title of the invention: The device for slocking mobile phones from crowdfunding;

(2) A dual application date (original application date)/registration date/registration number: October 18, 2006 ( July 20, 2006)/ March 15, 2007/No. 6985811

(3) A patentee: The plaintiffs

(4) The task or purpose to constitute the patented invention of this case

Previous slot cell phones covering devices installed on the front of this body because both sides are equipped with a set frame installed on the front of this body, and slot machines installed on the part of a fixed frame so that slots can run up, and set up on the slot machines and fixed press, so that slots can run up in a set line. The previous winding consists of a set-off system that makes it possible for both sides to run. The previous winding consists of a set-off system, which is set up on the surface of the slot machines and fixed presses, and the noise occurs accordingly, and a large amount of less than 10,000 slots, which causes a sharp decrease or malfunction. Accordingly, the patented invention of this case aims to reduce the credibility of mobile phones from 3 mobile phones to 4,000,000 to 4,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,000).

(5) Claims and drawings: Attached Form 1.

(b) An invention subject to verification;

The "portable device for mobile devices" is related to the "portable opening and closing device for covers," and the manual and drawings are as shown in attached Form 2.

C. Details of the instant trial decision

On October 15, 2008, the Defendant filed a petition against the Plaintiff for a trial to confirm the scope of rights of the instant patent invention on the grounds that the challenged invention does not fall under the scope of rights of the instant patent invention. The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board deliberated on it as 2008Da3090, and decided on March 31, 2009, on the ground that the challenged invention does not fall under the scope of rights of the instant patent invention because it cannot be said that it is identical or equal to the instant patent invention, and thus, the instant trial decision was rendered by the Defendant upon the instant petition.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the grounds for illegality of the trial decision of the plaintiff's assertion

The invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of right since it uses the invention equivalent to the invention of this case as the invention of this case. Thus, the part on the invention of this case as to the invention of paragraph (1) of this case in the trial decision of this case is unlawful

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. Determination as to whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the instant Claim 1 invention

(1) Determination criteria

Unless there are special circumstances, such as where the elements of the invention in question fall under the scope of the right of the patented invention, an organic combination relationship between each element of the patented invention and the elements thereof must be included in the invention in question. Even if the elements of the invention in question are exchanged or changed in the invention in question, if the solution principle of the task is identical in two inventions, even if it is based on such substitution, it is possible to achieve the same purpose as the patented invention, in substance the same effect as the patented invention can be achieved, and it is obvious that a person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”) can easily think that the invention in question falls under the scope of the right of the patented invention, unless the invention in question falls under the technology already known at the time of the application of the patented invention or the technologies publicly known at the time of the application of the patented invention, or where the elements exchanged in the invention in question are clearly excluded from the scope of the right of the patented invention in question, they still fall under the scope of the right of the patented invention in question.

In addition, where the prior patent invention and the subsequent invention are in use, the subsequent invention shall belong to the scope of the right of the prior patent invention. Such use relationship is established when the subsequent invention adds new technical elements to the technical composition of the prior patent invention, and the subsequent invention contains the outline of the prior invention and uses it as it is, but it maintains the unity of the subsequent invention as an invention. The same applies to the case where the prior invention is used not only as the prior invention but also as an equal invention (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Hu522, Aug. 21, 2001; 2001Hu393, Sept. 7, 2001, etc.).

(2) Preparation for the instant Claim 1 invention and the challenged invention

(A) Technical composition of the instant Claim 1 invention

(6) Claim 1 invention of this case concerns 40 or less mobile phones with 40 or less mobile phones (including 20 cell phones), ① 11 and 12 of this body (hereinafter referred to as “10”) which are capable of putting up 20 or less mobile phones with 40 or less mobile phones (c) connection 24 or 240 or (4) which are capable of putting up 12 or less so as to make it possible to put up 10 or less sets (12) with 40 or less mobile phones (c) connection 24 or 240 or less so as to make it possible to put up 20 or less sets up with 140 or (22) line (hereinafter referred to as “31 or 24) line.

(B) As to components 1

The component 1 is the body of the main body (11) and fixed press (12) equipped with the key body (10). This corresponds to the “main body (3) equipped with the key body (20) of the challenged invention.” The two components are the same in that the cell phone main body of the cell phone equipped with the fixed press (a cover) so that slots can be combined with the key body of the challenged invention.

(C) As to components 2

The components 2 are “slick (22) and slick (20) equipped with a fixed frame (12) that slicks (22) and slicks (21) that combines slicks with the fixed frame (11) to open or close the main body of the invention (10).” This corresponds to the “slicks (5) equipped with the mobile absence (10)” of the invention subject to confirmation. The two components are the same in that the mobile phone is a cell phone cover (rout) equipped with the slots (11) so that the main body of the mobile phone can be combined with the mobile phone.

(D) against components 3, 4, and 5

The components 3 and 4 are equipped with the first, second, showers (32) (42) (hereinafter referred to as "2), which are parallelly arranged between the high speed presses (12) and the slot presss (22), and "first, second, second, linked 2, 30 (30) (40) (hereinafter referred to as "the invention subject to the confirmation of attached Form 2) which are installed to make it possible to run in 1,2,00 pin (22) or fixed presss (12)" and "the first, second, 2, 30 (30) (hereinafter referred to as "the first, 58") of the invention subject to the confirmation is formed, and the second, 20 (20) or 10 (10) of the invention subject to the confirmation is installed to make it possible to turn in 31)" (see Do22 of the invention subject to the confirmation of attached Form 2). The components 5 are corresponded to "the show 1,2234(25) (25) (25) (20) of the two.

In preparation for each response structure, the term "No. 1, 2 link 30(40)" and "No. 1, 30(40)" of the component 3 and 4 and "No. 40(40) of the two inventions in question are the same in that they are capable of making it possible for them to run in the slot press or fixed press (not moving) by hin (31). In addition, in the case of paragraph 1 of this case, the composition consisting of "No. 1, 2 link 30(40)" and "No. 5(40) of the component of the invention in question with "No. 60(40)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(1, 220(s)(5)(s)(s)(27(s)(s)(251)(s)(s)(s)(27(s)(40)(s)(s)(51)(s)(s)(s)(251)(s)(s)(s)(s)(271)(s)(s)(s)(s)(271)(s)(s)(41)(s)(s)(s)(s)(27)(s)(s)(s)(s)(27)(s)(s)(s)(s)(27)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s))(s)))))(s.)))(s.

However, the above difference is merely a change in the relative position formed with Nos. 1, 2 Warp (42) [Sfin (77)] and No. 1, 2 Gab (51), 52 [58] [Sfin]]. The change in the position of a relative position formed with 1, 260 (40) [40] [50] connected display (50] [51, 52] [58]] can be combined so that slots can be operated, and as such, the difference in the position of the 1, 200 (32) (42) [77] [1]-20 (77)]-20 (29)-20 (77)-47)-27)-2)-4 (2)-24)-2)-4 (70)-2)-24 (70)-20 (70)-29)-24 (70)-20 (70)-29)-2)-24)-2)-20 (2)-2)-2)-24 (2)-2)-2)-2)-3).

(E) As to components 6

The components 6 correspond to the “shots (90) installed in the outer diameter of the challenged invention in the first, second, compressing (60) (70), which is installed in the outer diameter of the first, second, and third, (32) (42) (42).” The two components correspond to the “shots (90), which are installed in the outer diameter of the challenged invention in the first, second, (2), and (32) (32) (42).” The two components are the same in that the slots (22) function as a flexible trading in accordance with the fixed frame (0).

(f) As to components 7

The components 7 are “M(M) to prevent the flow of Nos. 1, 2 link 30(40)(s)(s)(s)(1, 2 show 32(s)(42)(s)(1, 2 show 2 show 32(s)(33)(s)(s)(33)(s)(s)(s)(1, 2 show 1, 2 show 32(s)(s)(s)(33)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(31, 33(3)(s)(33)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(50)(s)(s)(53)(s)(s)(s)(54)(s)(s)(s)(37)(s)(s)(37)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(4)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(4)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s))(s

In preparation for the corresponding corresponding composition of the invention in question, two components are the same in that it functions to prevent the circulation of the first and second link displays (30) (40) (40) (40) (one pair of lines (40) (one pair of lines) which are carried out by the composition of the Gararail (M) and the corresponding home. However, the term "chip prevention devices (M)" in components 7 is composed of the Garail on the Garail, the Garail preventive home is respectively formed into the connecting panel, while the Garail preventive home is composed of the Garail, and the Garaar (60) (71) (72) (73) of the Garail support panel (60) functions as the Garail, and the corresponding Garail (51) (40) is composed of both sides.

However, the above difference is merely a change in a relative position formed by a home corresponding thereto, and even if it is intended to change such change, it does not seem that there is any difference in the function to prevent the flow of a link 1, 2, 30 (40) [40] and so the solution principle in two inventions is the same, and it can achieve the same purpose as the prevention of the spread in the event of opening and closing of crowdfunding, and there is no particular difference in the effect of each response composition, and the change in such relative position is merely a clear matter that can easily be considered if it is an ordinary technician. Thus, the above response structure of the invention subject to confirmation contains an equivalent relationship with the "losion prevention means (M)" of the constituent element 7.

(G) Comprehensive results of preparation

As seen above, the same composition as the component 1, 2, and 6 among the composition of the instant Claim Nos. 1 is included in the invention subject to confirmation, and the composition is deemed to have fulfilled the same function as that of the instant Claim Nos. 1 while maintaining the unity of the composition. Thus, even if the challenged invention forms the carbon support board (60) in the form of S, and there is a difference between the Central Libro (71)(72) and the klbro (75), the invention subject to confirmation shall be included in the invention subject to confirmation while maintaining the unity of the instant invention as identical invention with the instant patented invention. Accordingly, the invention subject to confirmation shall be within the scope of its right, since it is related to the use of the instant patented invention.

(3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(A) First, in light of the detailed description, drawings, etc. of the invention, the Defendant asserts that the instant Claim Nos. 1 invention “S. 53 (54)” not only does it functioned to prevent the escape of links (30) (40) but also does not carry out the function of preventing the escape. Even if it is interpreted that the instant Claim Nos. 1 invention is included in the oil-related prevention home, it should maintain the central location of the dust in order to prevent the spread of the dust within the scope of the oil-related line. Thus, the instant Claim Nos. 1 invention’s home (51) consists of simple and ordinary home, and thus does not carry out the function of preventing the flow of the oil-related (53) (54)” of the instant Claim No. 1 invention, and thus, it cannot be seen as identical or equal.

However, if the technical scope is apparent only by the description of the claim, it cannot be interpreted by limiting the description of the claim by other description. The claim(s) of the instant Claim(1) contains only the phrase “ home that prevents dynamics as slots (53) (33) (43) are integrated so that slots can be operated in accordance with the virtual line(43) (43),” and the composition and technical scope of the instant Claim(s) are clearly identified by such description, and the virtual home(51) of the instant Claim(s) is also able to carry out the function of the instant Claim(1), and thus, it cannot be accepted since the claim(s) of this case’s Claim(1) contains any other premise that the instant Claim(s) is a movement to prevent dynamics (71) (72) (73) (73) and 40) by combining the instant Claim(s) with the instant Claim(1) invention(s).

(B) Next, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the invention in question is not included in the equal scope of the invention of Paragraph (1) of this case as it has separate effects, such as reduction of thickness, improvement of productivity, reduction of defect rate, etc. compared to the invention of Paragraph (1) of this case, since the carbon support (60) was manufactured in metal stuffs by means of stoves, etc.

However, the revolving board (40) in which the inserting hole (58) is formed also cannot be made in metal stuffing, and thus the thickness of the entire product cannot be deemed reduced compared to the invention of paragraph (1). Even if the invention of paragraph (1) of this case requires stimulation, there is no evidence to deem that the invention of this case is more unfavorable than the invention of this case in terms of productivity or inferior rate, and it is difficult to conclude it so (in the case of the invention of this case, at least the revolving board (40) is deemed to require stimulation), and the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(C) In addition, the defendant asserts that in order to discriminate against the composition of prior art (No. 4 and its main drawings are as shown in the attached Form 3) presented as known prior art in the process of examining the application for patent of this case and the composition of the flexible prevention method under Paragraph (1) of the claim for patent of this case at the time of the application for patent of this case, the composition of the invention of Paragraph (1) of this case was specifically specified by the amendment. Thus, the plaintiff argues that the composition of response to the invention of this case cannot be interpreted as within the equivalent scope by expanding the technical scope of the alternative prevention method after the amendment.

However, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the patent claim No. 1 at the time of patent application of the patented invention of this case only stated the method of preventing the flow of 1, 2, 30 (40) listed on both sides of the connecting display (50) as "M". However, since the patent examiner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office does not specifically limit the "passive method" of the above claim, the above claim No. 1, 2, 1, 2, and 2, as of now includes the flexible preventive method of the above claim No. 4, the plaintiff did not have any inventive step compared with the prior art (Evidence No. 4). In fact, the claim No. 1, 2, 1, 2, and 1, 2, and 300 (Evidence No. 4) added by the amendment, the prior art No. 4 does not include the defendant's right to prevent the invention of this case in light of its composition and scope. Thus, it can not be seen that the plaintiff did not have any right to prevent the invention of this kind.

B. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right to claim 1 of this case, and thus, the part concerning the invention of this case among the trial decision of this case on the invention of this case is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the part concerning the invention of this case among the decision of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-hwan (Presiding Judge)