A. (A) Determination as to whether the device falls under the scope of the right within the registered device, and whether the device is publicly known

(b) The case holding that (a) the device does not fall within the scope of the right without the need to specifically comparison with the registered device, since the registered device falls under the technology publicly notified prior to the application, and its scope of the right cannot be recognized as a whole;

A. If (a) a device falls under the scope of a right within the registered device, it shall not be determined whether the device falls under the scope of the registered device, but if the registered device falls under the publicly notified technology at the time of application of the registered device, the scope of the right shall not be recognized. In this case, (a) a device shall not fall under the scope of the right without the need to prepare against the registered device.

(b) The case holding that since a registered device is identical to the intrinsic composition and action effect of the cited device that has already been publicly announced at the time of the application, since the registered device is part of the technology that had already been publicly announced before the application, the scope of the entire right cannot be recognized, the device of subparagraph (a) does not fall within the scope of the right, since the registered device of subparagraph (a) does not fall within the scope of the right.

Articles 4 and 32 of the Utility Model Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Hu178 delivered on June 23, 1987 (Gong1987, 1239) 86Do2670 delivered on June 23, 1987 (Gong1987, 1264). Supreme Court Decision 90Hu2232 delivered on October 25, 191 (Dong)

claimant

Patent Attorney Cho Chang-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Trial Office on October 22, 1990 ad hoc 59 decided Oct. 22, 199

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the original decision, the court below held that the (a) invention does not fall under the scope of the right since the technical composition of the invention is identical or similar to that of the invention, and the effect of the invention is also identical to that of the invention before the application for the design of this case. Thus, in the case where (a) invention of this case does not fall under the scope of the right, the court below did not determine whether the invention of this case falls under the scope of the right, but if the invention of this case falls under the publicly notified technology at the time of the application for the design of this case, the scope of the right to the invention of this case is not recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Hu178, Jun. 23, 1987; 86Do2670, Jun. 23, 1987).

2. However, according to the records, the quoted device is a device made public on September 20, 1984 as described in the Utility Model Gazette (Evidence A), which is a publication published domestically. The design of this case (trademark registration number omitted) is one package of a printing pattern (5) (5) (5) using solid synthetic resin as a board. The quoted device is one package of the device’s outer lid (2) and its outer lids (3) combined with the fixed board (3) so that the device can not be used in a transparent manner, and thus, it is extremely identical to the device’s composition, and it can not be used in a transparent manner as well as in a transparent manner to distinguish the device from the device’s description from the publicly known one’s upper part (2). Thus, if the quoted device is used in a solid lid made of synthetic resin and the outer lid made of the device’s outer lids, and it is extremely identical to the device’s composition, in essence, it is not possible to use the device in a transparent manner prior to the addition of the device.

3. The court below did not have judged the same or similarity in preparation for the present device and the cited device, and there is no error of incomplete hearing on the premise that it was judged.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)