[1] Requirements for deeming that the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit manufactures, etc. or uses them to infringe the patent right of the patented invention, and the method of determining the infringement of the patent right in a case where part of the composition of the patent claim is exchanged or modified

[2] The meaning of "the solution principle is the same as the other party's solution principle" as a requirement for deeming that the other party's product or method of using the product or method of using the product is an infringement of the patent right of the patented invention

[3] In a case where the issue is whether the other party's method of implementing a patent right for a patented invention, which is "the former automatically converted method applied to a single-use combined input device," was infringed upon, the case affirming the judgment below that the other party's method of implementing the patent right does not include both identical or equal composition with the patented invention, and thus,

[4] The meaning and binding effect of the intermediate judgment, and whether the intermediate judgment is subject to the judgment of the appellate court (affirmative)

[5] In a case where the lower court rendered an interim judgment to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s claim regarding the infringement of a patent right by the Defendant is with merit only to the part of the patent claim, and the remainder is without merit,” and in a final judgment, the Defendant’s implementation method does not infringe the patent right of a certain invention, the case holding that the lower court’s measure is unlawful since it contradicts the binding force of the intermediate judgment, but the Defendant’s implementation method does not infringe the patent right of a part of the invention, and thus, the intermediate judgment cannot be maintained as it is, and that the final judgment is justifiable

[1] In order for the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit to infringe the patent right of a patented invention, an organic combined relationship between each element and its component stated in the scope of the patent claim of the patented invention must be included in the infringed product. Meanwhile, even in the case where there are parts of substitution or modification in the scope of the patent claim of the patented invention in the infringed product, etc., the solution principle between the patented invention and the task can be identical, even if they are subject to substitution, the same purpose can be achieved in the patented invention, and the same effect can be achieved in the patented invention even if they are based on such substitution, and the person with ordinary knowledge in the technology to which the invention belongs (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily be considered if they are the same technology as the one already known at the time of the application for the patent invention, or the person with ordinary skill, who could easily make an invention from the publicly known technology at the time of the application for the patent invention, or if there are no special circumstances such as the distribution of the infringed product through the procedure for the application for the patent invention, they should still be seen as equal to the scope of the patented product.

[2] The requirement for deeming that a product manufactured by the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit or a method of using the other party to the patent (hereinafter “infringed product, etc.”) is identical to the solution principle of the patented invention is an infringement of the patent right of the patented invention. The meaning of "inherent part of the patented invention, etc., the composition of the infringed product, etc. is non-inherent part of the patented invention, and thus, the infringed product, etc. has the characteristic composition of the patented invention. When grasping the characteristic composition of the patented invention, the detailed description of the invention does not extract part of the composition stated in the scope of the patent claim, but rather, the detailed description of the description of the specification and the prior art at the time of application should be examined and determined in comparison with the prior art.

[3] In a case where the issue is whether the other party's method of implementing a patent right for a patented invention, which is an "here conversion method applied to a combined input device," was infringed upon by the other party's method of using the patent right, the case holding that the composition of the patented invention is understood to be a composition of one column to respectively create Korean language saving and English language saving corresponding to the key entered in the claim itself until the separation is entered, while the other party's method of implementation corresponding thereto is established as to whether the other party's method of implementation is in conformity with the conditions of one column which are first entered and can only be determined as an "an additional method of calculating the other party's method of entering Korean language saving" without distinguishing the other party's method of application from that of an "an additional method of entering Korean language saving" which is equivalent to that of the other party's method of entering Korean language saving and determining whether the other party's method of application can be separated from that of the other party's method of application without distinguishing the other party's words "an additional method of responding to the other party's length of application."

[4] An intermediate judgment is a judgment preparing the final judgment by arranging and judging in advance individual issues, which are the premise of the final judgment, prior to rendering a final judgment, which is a judgment closing all or part of the case in the relevant instance. The court that rendered the judgment upon the pronouncement of an intermediate judgment, is bound by the court that rendered the judgment, and thus, even when rendering the final judgment, it should be premised on the judgment’s main text. Even if the judgment of the intermediate judgment was wrong, any conflicting judgment may not be rendered. Such intermediate judgment is subject to a final judgment prior to the final judgment, along with the final judgment (Articles 392 and 425 of

[5] Where the lower court rendered an interim judgment to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s claim regarding the infringement of a patent right by the Defendant is with merit only to the part of the patent claim, and the remainder is without merit,” and the final judgment rendered a decision dismissing all claims for damages arising from infringement of a patent right on the ground that the Defendant’s implementation method does not infringe the patent right of a certain invention, the case affirming the reasoning and conclusion of the final judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of patent right of a patent invention, on the ground that the Defendant’s implementation method is in conflict with the binding force of an intermediate judgment and is unlawful, but the Defendant’s implementation method does not include both identical or equal composition with the above part of the invention, and thus,

[1] Articles 97 and 126 of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 97 and 126 of the Patent Act / [3] Articles 97 and 126 of the Patent Act / [4] Articles 201, 392, and 425 of the Civil Procedure Act / [5] Articles 201, 392, and 425 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3806 Decided June 25, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1239), Supreme Court Decision 2009Da46712 Decided October 15, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu296 Decided May 27, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1296) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 94Da38366 Decided December 27, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 669)

Plaintiff

Succession Intervenor 1 and one other (Law Firm Dao, Attorney Oin-type, Counsel for the succeeding intervenor-appellant)

Korean Microfaw Ltd. (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Kim Jae-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na60578 decided June 23, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 7

A. To deem that a product manufactured by the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit or a method of using the other party to the patent (hereinafter referred to as “infringed product, etc.”) infringes on the patent right of the patented invention, an organic combination relationship between each constituent element and its component stated in the scope of the patent claim of the patented invention must be included in the infringed product, etc. Meanwhile, even in the case where there are parts exchanged or modified in the scope of the patent claim of the patented invention in the infringed product, etc., the solution principle of the patented invention and task can be the same, even if those parts are exchanged, the same purpose as the patented invention can be achieved in the patented invention even if they are exchanged, and the same effect can be expressed in the patented invention, and it is obvious to the extent that anyone can easily think of the patented invention in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”), and it should be determined that the scope of the patent claim of the patented invention is identical to that of the patented invention, 200 prior art or ordinarily skilled person described in the scope of the patent claim(s) through the procedure of the patented invention.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) the instant patent invention (registration number No. 16591) under paragraph (6) (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 6”) using the name of the Defendant as “an automatic conversion method applied to a single type input device”; (b) the composition of the instant patent invention and the number of Claim No. 1 through No. 591; and (c) the composition of the instant Claim No. 22 (hereinafter “the remainder of Claim Nos. 6”) and the composition of the first through 5 of the instant Claim No. 22 were created respectively until the entry is separated from the description of the relevant Claim No. 2; and (d) the determination of whether the two terms are identical or similar to that of the instant invention is to be conducted by the Defendant’s method of processing the two terms and conditions, regardless of whether the two terms and conditions are identical or similar to that of the initial one, the lower court determined that it is unnecessary to determine whether the two terms and conditions of the initial one can be separated from the initial one to be applied to the initial one.

In addition, the court below determined that the second step of the instant Claim No. 7 invention is determined in English when the language formed in the first step meets the rules of the Korean Association, and is determined in English when the rules of the Korean Association are satisfied, and the corresponding two step composition of the Defendant's implementation method different from the classification of the input code, while the two step composition of the instant Claim No. 7 is different from the classification of input code, and the corresponding two step composition of the defendant's implementation method differs from the classification of input code, and the Korean pattern simply has "the composition of the judgment in Korean when the subject language satisfies the rules of the Korean Association" in the Korean pattern, but is not equipped with the same composition, and there is no "the composition of the judgment in English if the subject language is satisfied with the rules of the Korean Association," and there is a difference between the two step composition and the two step. Therefore, the defendant's application does not infringe the patent right to the instant Claim No. 7 invention.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to judgment on the scope of right of a patented invention as otherwise alleged in the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. An intermediate judgment is a judgment prepared to prepare a final judgment by arranging and judging each individual issue, which is the premise of the final judgment, prior to rendering a final judgment, which is a final judgment, which is a judgment closing all or part of the case at that instance (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da38366, Dec. 27, 1994). The court that rendered the final judgment upon the pronouncement of an intermediate judgment, is bound by the judgment, and thus, is also bound by the judgment, and thus, even if the final judgment is rendered, it shall be premised upon the judgment’s main text. Even if the judgment of an intermediate judgment is erroneous, a judgment is not inconsistent with this Opinion. Such intermediate judgment is subject to a final judgment prior to the final judgment, which is subject to the final judgment (Articles 392

B. According to the records, the court below rendered an interim judgment on the grounds of a claim declared on February 19, 2008 that "the defendant infringed on the invention of paragraphs (6) through (8), (14), (2) and (23) of this case, and the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor's assertion is justified only for the part of paragraphs (6), (7), and (22) of this case, and the remainder is groundless." However, in the final judgment rendered on June 23, 2010, the court below rendered a final judgment dismissing all the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor for damages arising from the infringement of the patent right on the grounds that the defendant's implementation method does not infringe the patent right of the inventions of paragraphs (6), (7), and (22) of this case.

In light of the above legal principles, the above decision of the court below is unlawful as it conflicts with the binding force of the intermediate judgment.

C. However, the Defendant’s implementation method does not include both identical or equal compositions with the instant Claim Nos. 6, 7, and 22, and thus does not infringe the patent right of these inventions. As such, the lower court’s intermediate judgment can not be maintained as it comes from misunderstanding of the legal doctrine on the scope of patent right of the patented invention, and rather, the reasons and conclusion of the lower court’s final judgment are justifiable.

As seen earlier, the lower court’s illegality does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and ultimately, the allegation in the grounds of appeal regarding the binding force of an intermediate judgment cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)