[2] The description of the pharmacological effect for "the detailed description of the invention" in the patent application specification of the invention for the use of medicine

[2] The "detailed description of the invention" to be stated in the specification attached to a patent application shall state the purpose, composition, effect, and effect of the invention in question, without adding special knowledge to the technology level at the time of the application by the description of the specification. In particular, as to the invention of the use of a medicine which requires the statement of pharmacological effect, unless there are special circumstances such as where the pharmacological effect in the specification has been clearly disclosed before the application, it shall be deemed that the invention has been completed only when the specific substance contains such pharmacological effect on the test, or only when it is stated to the extent that it can be substituted, by the description of the specification, or only when it is stated to the extent that it can be substituted by the description of the invention.

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court found the following facts and determined as follows.

(1) The scope of claims to be indicated in the specification of the invention for use of a medicine must, in principle, be expressed as the effect that constitutes diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, treatment and prevention of a disease. However, in cases where the correlation between the active mechanism and the target disease is publicly known, it is allowed to be written as a functional expression by the active mechanism.

(2) Claim No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "claim No. 1) of the invention claimed in this case, the name of which is "for the purpose of suppressing beer formation", refers to "effective formation of beer with general consciousness in the original judgment, including suppression compounds and subsidiary agents that can be permitted in pharmaceutically," and its description provides that "all cromatic situations created by non-fluoring beer formation depend on beer formation - or beer formation - diseases related to beer formation - the beer formation - the beer - the beer - the beer - the beer fluoral formation disease with beer urology, beer vegetable vegetable vegetable, beer vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable verative.

(3) On the other hand, the literature published prior to the patent application for the invention of this case contains the following: (a) prior to the formation of the beer, it is clear that prior to the formation of the beer system: (b) prior to the filing of the patent application: (c) prior to the filing of the patent application, the literature contains a series of common steps, such as activation of internal cells; (d) division of protoo cells destroying the quality of the beer and the tissue; (d) formation of the beer customs house; (e) joint operation of the beer and new beer; (vi) formation of the beer customs house connected with the two stones; (vii) development of the 2nd header customs house; and (e) the submission of the documents related thereto, including Pepsitad, geological, Cu2 + Gain; and (e) the submission of the patent application for the invention of this case was already publicly known at the time of the patent application for the invention of this case.

(4) Therefore, even if the patent application invention of this case stated the suppression of the formation of connection itself, not the name of a specific disease, as the medicinal use, the description of the specification is not in violation of Article 42(3) or (4) of the Patent Act.

(5) In addition, the invention of this case has the technical significance to indicate for the first time the fact that there is a special nature to restrain the formation of connection with the effective ingredients of the product. Accordingly, the purpose of the invention of this case using the effective ingredients as medicine is to restrain the formation of connection occurring in the dynamic process. Thus, the claim 1 is to clearly indicate the purpose of the invention of this case as the invention of medicinal use, and as long as it is proved for the first time by the invention of this case that the effective ingredients of the invention of this case are effective to restrain the formation of connection, it is clearly revealed that the new disease is related to the formation of connection, and even if the inventor newly revealed that the inventor applied the effective ingredients of the invention of this case to the invention of this case, the inventor's subsequent inventor's invention is related to the formation of connection with a specific disease, and thus, the invention of this case has to be denied by the same method as the invention of this case.

B. In an invention of use of a medicine, the use of the medicine with a specified substance constitutes an element of the invention, and the claim of the invention must clearly state the use of the medicine with the specified substance in the relevant disease or efficacy.

In light of the record, the invention of this case is the invention of the use of medicine for the purpose of suppressing beer formation. Claim 1 is described as "the composition of beer with the general consciousness in the original judgment - the suppression compound and the composition effective in preventing beer formation, including the declibrative substance that can be permitted in pharmaceutically." The specification of the invention of this case contains an sclibrity and related compound so that the invention of this case can prevent unbrupted beer formation by administering the sclibrity and related compound. Various pathological situations generated by unbrupted beer formation or related disease are combined with a beer formation or related disease, and treatment for controlling beer formation process can be led to removal and relaxation of the disease. Thus, the invention of this case is described as "the development of beer, melter, and sclibrosis, and the content of the sclibrative substance of the clibrosis, which can be clearly indicated in the process of controlling the formation of beer's disease."

In addition, if it is found that a third party can use the active ingredients of the invention of this case for a new disease treatment system not publicly known prior to the patent application of the invention of this case based on the same pharmacological action, such as suppression of the formation of connection, it would be necessary to determine whether the invention satisfies the patent requirements in consideration of the contents of the invention, the degree of relationship between the existing disease and the new disease, the apparent degree of treatment effect of the new disease, the relationship between the invention of this case and the patent application of this case, etc.

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat inappropriate in its reasoning, it is just to conclude that the claim(1) does not violate the requirements for specification description, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the requirements for claim(s) of an invention, incomplete hearing, omission of judgment, etc.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

A. The "detailed description of the invention" to be entered in the specification attached to the patent application shall state the purpose, composition, action, and effect of the invention in question, without adding special knowledge to the technology level at the time of the application by the description of the specification, by a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as "average technician"), and shall state the purpose, composition, effect, and effect so that the invention can be reproduced at the same time. In particular, for the invention of the use of a medicine which requires the pharmacological effect prior to the application, unless there are special circumstances such as cases where a pharmacological effect indicating the pharmacological effect in the specification is clearly revealed before the application, it shall be deemed that the invention has been completed only in the case of a test on which the pharmacological effect on the specific substance is shown or where it is stated to the extent that it can be substituted (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu2846, Oct. 10, 203).

B. Based on the adopted evidence, the lower court determined to the effect that, in view of the following facts: (a) the claim(s) specifies the basic structure and ventilation of effective compounds in suppressing the formation of the connection; and (b) the specification provides data showing the effect of suppressing the connection formation; (c) the effective substance of the invention in the application of this case is a representative experimental method confirming the constrainability of the connection formation; and (d) the effect of suppressing the connection formation in the specification of the invention in this case is sufficient data to confirm the connection formation effect of the invention in this case, regardless of the generation level or the population, regardless of the type and the point of occurrence of the connection formation, the average engineer’s prior technology and the effective substance of the invention in this case are being conducted through a common mechanism regardless of the type and the point of occurrence of the connection formation of the connection formation, and that the effective substance of the invention in this case can be sufficiently predicted through various methods of suppressing the connection formation of the connection formation of the connection with the invention in this case through various methods other than the specification.

C. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for the detailed description of the invention, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)