B. Whether the method of manufacturing chemical substances, the effect of which is improved compared with the previous method of manufacturing by using promotions, is different from the previous method of manufacturing without using promotions (affirmative)

C. In a case where there is no advice on the use of a promotion publicly known in the scope or detailed description of the patent claim, whether the patent is premised on the use of the promotion (negative)

D. In a case where a prior invention and a subsequent invention are in a utilization relationship under Article 45(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207 of Jan. 13, 1990), whether the subsequent invention falls under the scope of the right to the prior invention (affirmative)

D. Whether the use relationship under Article 45(3) of the former Patent Act is established in a case where the subsequent invention in respect of machinery, apparatus, etc. contains all the outlines of the prior invention and new technical elements thereof (affirmative)

E. Whether the subsequent invention uses a prior invention without mentioning the effects by using a promotional effect in the process of the invention of a chemical (negative)

B. The use of promotions in the manufacturing process of chemical substances differs significantly from the professional engineer's status. Thus, the patent manufacturing process and the manufacturing process using promotions without any reference to the promotional use are different inventions by different methods, except where it is deemed that the latter's promotional use is not aimed at gaining friendlyness in the operating effect, but is not merely adding a value-free process, even if it is the same as the starting material and the producing material.

C. Even if the use of the promotional sheet was already publicly announced at the time of patent application and could easily be predicted if the person engaged in the technical field was a person, the patent cannot be deemed to have been premised on the use of the promotional sheet, unless there was a reference in the scope or detailed description of the patent claim.

D. If a prior invention and a subsequent invention are in a relationship of use provided by Article 45(3) of the former Patent Act, the subsequent invention shall belong to the scope of the patent right of the prior invention.

E. In the case of an invention related to machinery, apparatus, etc., the use relationship under Article 45(3) of the former Patent Act is established if the subsequent invention imposes new technical elements on the summary of the prior invention, and the subsequent invention contains all the outlines of the prior invention and uses them as it is.

F. The legal principle of the above "ma" that applies to an invention on machinery, equipment, etc. cannot be applied to the manufacturing process invention of chemical substances. In particular, the manufacturing process using a patent manufacturing process that does not refer to the promotional use, and in particular, even if the starting material and the production process are the same, the subsequent invention cannot be deemed to have used the prior invention, except where it is deemed that the subsequent use of the promotional use is not aimed at gaining the friendship in the operating effect, but rather it is nothing more than adding a valueless process. Thus, the subsequent invention is outside the scope of the right of the prior invention.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

With respect to the First and Three Points:

(1) The original decision on the trial contains a review of the technical content of the invention (a) invention of No. 23468 of the claimant's patent registration (hereinafter referred to as the "patent") compared with the starting material, reaction material, and objective material of both parties, but different from the other one. (a) The invention of No. 1 is brupt and upper chlorinated chlorinated chlorinated chlorinated chlorinated chlorith, and the patent is used as a bruptor for its own purpose. (a) The invention of No. 23468 of the claimant's patent registration (hereinafter referred to as the "patent") is reversed, and is not subject to the patent reaction of this case. (b) The patent reaction of this case is not subject to the patent reaction of this case for 135 to 140 hours, but is not subject to the patent reaction of this case. (c) The patent reaction of this case's invention is not subject to the patent reaction of this case.

(2) According to Article 57 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 4207, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same), the scope of a patent right or the actual scope of a patent right shall be determined by the matters described in the scope of a patent claim among various descriptions in the patent specification. However, in a case where a patent specification contains a description in extremely ambiguous, abstract, or general method of expression, such description alone cannot be determined even if the technical composition of the patent is unknown or it is unknown, so in such a case, the technical scope can not be determined. Thus, in determining the technical scope or the scope of a patent right, the technical scope shall be determined substantially as a whole by supplementing other descriptions such as the detailed description of the invention or drawing, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 72Hu424, May 23, 72; Supreme Court Decision 72Hu7242, Jul. 10, 193; Supreme Court Decision 73Hu384, Mar. 37, 1973).

According to the records of this case, the patent of this case is related to the manufacturing method of 7-Amino-1-Amino-4-Lodyd-1, 4-didyd-Nadyd-3-Chydic acid (quilodin)-3-Chydic acid, and the claims of this case are 11 items such as general formula (I) 7-Amino-1-Lodyd-4-lodyd-4-Ndydydic acid (quilodin) and manufacturing method of its salts, i.e., general formula (II)-3-Chydic acid or protruding-3-carbic acid-3-carbic acid with general formula (III).

(A) If the claims of this case are pointed out within the scope of the patent claim 4, i.e., (7-P. f. u. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f.). f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f.

(3) According to Article 45(3) of the former Patent Act, if a patentee, exclusive licensee, or non-exclusive licensee uses another person's patented invention, registered utility model, or registered design before the filing date of the patented invention, or if it conflicts with another person's registered design applied before the filing date of the patented invention, he/she may not work his/her patented invention as a business without the consent of the patentee, the owner of the utility model right, or the owner of the design right. According to Article 59(1) of the former Patent Act, if the patentee, the exclusive licensee, or the non-exclusive licensee wishes to obtain a non-exclusive license for the invention under Article 45(3) of the same Act without any justifiable reason or if it is impossible to obtain another person's license to work the patented invention, he/she may request an adjudication on the non-exclusive license for the invention of the preceding invention after the lack of reasonable grounds. Article 59(2) of the same Act provides that a non-exclusive license may not be granted for the invention of the preceding invention only after the filing date of the preceding invention or registered utility model.

With respect to the second ground:

Even in cases where a subsequent invention is different from the prior invention, if the subsequent invention falls under the technical scope of the prior invention and falls under the scope of the right of the prior invention, as pointed out in the arguments. However, the original decision is judged on the ground that (a) invention is recognized as an invention different from the patent in this case; and (a) invention does not fall under the scope of the patent right of this case because it cannot be seen as the patent in this case. Accordingly, as in the theory of lawsuit, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the system to confirm the scope of right, or by failing to determine whether the (a) invention falls under the scope of the patent right of this case. The argument is groundless.

With respect to the fourth point:

The grounds for appeal are as follows: (a) the respondent asserted that there is no separate effect even if he/she uses promotions in the invention of subparagraph (a) at the court below; and (b) the court below failed to make any decision on the evidence Nos. 2 and 3; and (c) despite the submission of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, there was an error of incomplete deliberation or omission of judgment. However, according to the reasoning for the decision of the court below, the court below judged that the assertion that the (a) invention of subparagraph (a) is not effective even if he/she uses promotions, as in the lawsuit, has no separate effect as an opposite fact based on other evidence shown in the records; and (c) there is no error of incomplete deliberation or determination, and as long as it is acknowledged by other evidence, there is no error of law of omission of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 corresponding to the counter-performance, and there is no error

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)