[1] In a case where there is a change in the composition of the patent claim of a patent invention by the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit, the elements to deem that the product, etc. infringes the patent right of the patent invention, and the method to determine whether “the solution principle is identical” among the elements thereof

[2] The degree of specification of the product or method claimed in the lawsuit against infringement of a patent right

[1] In order for the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit to infringe on a patent right of a patented invention, an organic combined relationship between each element and its component stated in the patent claim of the patented invention must be included in the infringed product, etc. In order for the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit to infringe on the patent right of the patented invention. Even in cases where there are any changes in the composition stated in the patent claim of the patented invention in the infringed product, the solution principle between the patented invention and the task is identical, the patented invention actually has the same effect as that of the patented invention, and the modification is likely to easily think if a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, barring any special circumstance, the infringed product, etc. is equal to the composition stated in the patent claim of the patented invention and still is deemed to infringe

In this context, when determining whether "the solution principle" for an infringed product, etc. and a patented invention are the same, part of the composition stated in the claim does not formally extract, but rather, in comparison with the prior art in light of the detailed description of the invention stated in the specification and the prior art at the time of the application, it is necessary to investigate and determine substantially what is the core of the professional engineer on which the unique solution method is based on the patented invention in comparison with the prior art. The substantial value of the patented invention to be protected by the Patent Act has contributed to technological development by resolving the patented invention. As such, in determining whether the modified component of the infringed product, etc. is equal to the elements corresponding to the patented invention, it is necessary to consider the solution principle for the unique task in relation to the patented invention.

The purpose of considering not only the detailed description of the invention but also the publicly known art at the time of the application is to objectively identify the substantial value of the patented invention according to the degree that the patented invention has contributed to technological development in relation to the entire prior art. Therefore, considering such prior art, it is necessary to determine how wide or narrowly grasp the solution principle of the patented invention based on the degree that the patented invention contributes to technological development. However, other professional engineers should not be replaced with the core of a professional engineer without excluding the core of the professional engineer identified in the detailed description based on the publicly known art not stated in the detailed description.Although a third party who trusted in the detailed description did not use the core of the technical engineer identified in the detailed description of the invention, it may cause unexpected damages to a third party if the solution principle is deemed as the same on the ground that the third party used the core of the replaced technical engineer.

[2] In civil procedure, the purport of the claim should be clearly identified so that the content and scope of the claim can be clearly identified. Thus, in the case of a claim for prohibition of infringement of a patent right, the product or method of the claim is sufficient to be specified to the extent that it can be distinguished from the other one, as the subject of the claim seeking prohibition of infringement

[1] Articles 97, 126, and 128 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 249 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 126 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu1132 Decided July 24, 2014 (Gong2014Ha, 1753), Supreme Court Decision 2013Da14361 Decided July 24, 2014 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2011Da17090 Decided September 8, 201 (Gong201Ha, 2077)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na14488 decided May 1, 2002

Korea Factor Co., Ltd. (LLC, Attorneys Kim Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 2016Kahap23 dated July 13, 2016

The reappeal is dismissed. The costs of reappeal shall be borne by the debtor.

The grounds of reappeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of reappeal Nos. 1 through 6

A. In order for the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit to infringe on a patent right of a patented invention, an organic combined relationship between each constituent element and its component stated in the patent claim of the patented invention must be included in the infringing product, etc. In cases where there are any changes in the composition stated in the patent claim of the patented invention in the infringing product, etc., if the solution principle is identical to the patented invention, the task is substantially identical to the patented invention, the effect of which is substantially identical to the patented invention, and any person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”), can easily think of such changes, barring any special circumstance, the infringing product, etc. is equivalent to the composition stated in the patent claim of the patented invention, and still is an infringement on the patent right of the patented invention.

In this context, when determining whether “the solution principle” for an infringed product and a patented invention is the same, part of the composition described in the claim does not formally extract, but rather, in comparison with the prior art, taking into account the detailed description of the invention described in the specification and the prior art at the time of the application, the determination should be based on a practical examination of what is the core of the professional engineer based on which the unique solution method is based on the patented invention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Hu132, Jul. 24, 2014; 2013Da14361, Jul. 24, 2014). As such, the substantial value of the patented invention to be protected under the Patent Act contributes to technological development by resolving the technology task that has not been resolved in the prior art, the unique solution principle should be considered in determining whether the modified element of the patented invention is equal to the elements corresponding to the patented invention.

The purpose of considering not only the detailed description of the invention but also the publicly known art at the time of the application is to objectively identify the substantial value of the patented invention according to the degree that the patented invention has contributed to technological development in relation to the entire prior art. Therefore, considering such prior art, it is necessary to determine how wide or narrowly grasp the solution principle of the patented invention based on the degree that the patented invention contributes to technological development. However, other professional engineers should not be replaced with the core of a professional engineer without excluding the core of the professional engineer identified in the detailed description based on the publicly known art not stated in the detailed description.Although a third party who trusted in the detailed description did not use the core of the technical engineer identified in the detailed description, it may cause unexpected damages to a third party if the solution principle is deemed to apply due to the use of the alternative core in the alternative description.

B. We examine the above legal principles and records.

(1) Whether the principle of resolving the task is identical

(A) The instant patent invention (patent registration number omitted) is an invention with the title “a automatic cutting and receiving device in whole.”

(B) As indicated in the judgment below by the debtor, the composition of Paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as the " Claim 1 invention of this case") of the scope of the patent invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the " Claim 1 invention of this case") and the remainder except 6 and 7 of the patent invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the " Claim 1 invention of this case") include ① composition 1, ② composition 2, ③ composition 3 (Inwards), 4 (Gaumping), 5 (Gaumpings), 6 composition 8 (Gaumpings).

(C) 6 of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is comprised of inputs in one side to accommodate the red layer whole in the inner part of the inner part of the unit, equipped with strings to transport the whole whole in operation to the accurate cut position, allowing the whole whole of the unit to be automatically sealed inside the unit, and providing stable guidance for the operation of the strings.

The execution product of this case contains the "technical composition, on the other hand, which is equipped with a racks which can be operated at the place where the whole whole whole is put into, and the four vertical bars are installed, and the length of the above side side is shorter than the length of the lower side (commercial point: the highest position among the rise administration of the round-to-door movement), which is put in the middle of the racks formed on the side of the signboard in the middle of the racks formed on the side of the signboard among the commercial points (hereinafter referred to as "consembling six combinations").

(D) Composition 7 of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is “S. Gadices fixed at the lower part of the Gadice and cut down with the thickness wider than that of the following.”

The instant implementation product contains “a string-type gambling” with a slope attached to the lower part of the cut position of the laver and below, and the thickness of which is linked to the upper part of the cut laver and the upper part of the cut laver that is linked to the upper part and formed vertically in a vertical line adjacent to each pressure plate (hereinafter “Composition 7 response structure”).

(E) The detailed description of the instant patent invention states that “In the future, it was impossible to present a structure that sets the distance between each red floor Kim at the distance between respective storage spaces of containers and containers, but it is possible to automated the process of receipt by inducing the pressure-saving plates that enjoy the above red layer Kim to keep the space depending on the outer slope of the string day.”

(F) The key point in the professional engineer’s view, which is based on the unique solution means for the instant Claim No. 1, which is identified through the description of the detailed description of the invention, is “inspiring each other to punish one another depending on the external slope of the cut type parts, which are set up in the lower part of the Gadk case, while leaving down by the cut red-story Kim.”

The proposal for filing an earlier application in the holding of the court below is not a technology publicly known at the time of the filing of the instant patent application, but it does not seem to have any other circumstances to deem that the core of the said professional engineer was publicly known at the time of the filing of the instant patent application. Furthermore, although the detailed description of the invention states that 6 Gazs stably provide guidance on the operation of the pressure saving, such function is limited to the extent that it contributes to realizing the core of the professional engineer in the instant Claim 1 invention by providing stable guidance on the operation of pressure saving plates, and it cannot be understood as the core in the professional engineer who is based on the special resolution method for the instant Claim 1 invention.

(G) The instant implementation product also leads each other to keep the cut red-story Kim from spreading along with the external slope of the shooting-type gambling room in accordance with the composition of the “scambling-type gambling,” which was equipped with slope pages.

(h) Therefore, despite the difference in the aforementioned composition, the instant implementation product is identical to the instant Claim 1 invention at the core of the professional engineer.

(2) Whether the action effects are identical

The instant implementation product indicates the same effect to the extent that it can be realized the core of the instant Claim No. 1 invention in the sense that, even if the composition 7 changes from the composition 7 response structure, it is deemed that the instant implementation product does not lack composition 6, even though the effect of the instant implementation product’s instruction on pressure saving is lower than that of the instant implementation product, it cannot be deemed that the instant implementation product does not realize the core of the technical engineer of the instant Claim No. 1 invention, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant implementation product does not realize the core of the instant invention No. 1 invention. Accordingly, it can be deemed that the composition 6 and its effect are substantially identical.

(3) Whether the composition can be changed

It is nothing more than a technical instrument that is commonly adopted in the technical field of the instant patent invention to cut off the objects fixed on the lower part while moving down the lower part. Therefore, it is easy for anyone to think if a normal technician is an ordinary technician to change the composition of the cut-off day to a separate structure that is located on the upper part adjacent to each pressure plate so that the “shot-off day” is separated from the “shot-type gambling” and moved down to the lower part, such as the organization corresponding to the 7 response structure of the instant patent invention.

In addition, it can be seen that a person with ordinary skill can easily think of it without any technical effort, taking into account the form of parts and the relationship between the two sides and the two sides, in order to make up the two sides of the box form 6 to a separate organization that separately sets up the “serious signboards formed on their inner side.”

(4) Whether an exemption from food is granted

Even in cases where an applicant could easily consider the composition of an infringed product, etc. at the time of filing an application, but fails to state it in the claims, there is no special circumstance, such as that the said component falls under the category of exclusion from claims in the patent application procedure for the patented invention.

C. Therefore, since the instant patent invention contains an organic combination relationship between the identical or equal elements as to the instant patent claim 1 and its components, it infringes the patent right of the instant patent claim 1. Although the reasoning of the lower judgment is partly inappropriate, the conclusion that the instant patent invention infringed the patent right of the instant patent claim 1 is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of reappeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the infringement of patent right of the instant patent claim 1, thereby affecting the judgment.

2. As to the ground of reappeal No. 7

In civil procedure, the purport of the claim should be clearly identified so that the content and scope of the claim can be clearly identified. Thus, in the case of claiming a prohibition of infringement on a patent right, the product or method subject to the claim is sufficient if it is specifically specified to the extent that it can be distinguishable from other products as a subject for the prohibition of infringement on social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da17090, Sept. 8, 2011). Therefore, it is justifiable for the lower court to specify the product of this case under the model name, etc. stated in the purport of the claim. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of the subject of the claim for prohibition, or by violating the principle of disposition authority.

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

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)