[1] The case where the inventive step of the so-called "determined-type invention" is recognized and the method of proving inventive step, which claims claims a specific-type compound that differs only from that publicly known in prior inventions in the field of pharmaceutical compounds

[2] The case affirming the judgment below to the effect that the non-obviousness of an invention is denied on the ground that the non-obviousness of the invention is not denied on the ground that the non-obviousness of the invention cannot be seen as having a qualitative or quantitative effect compared to the compound of the comparable invention, since the non-obviousness of the invention in the patent application invention, which is "the solid and determined base dyeium and its manufacturing method"

[1] Article 29(1) and (2) of the Patent Act / [2] Article 29(1) and (2) of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2865 Decided July 14, 201 (Gong2011Ha, 1666)

Tebamasts Scid (Patent Attorney Na Young-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

Patent Court Decision 2010Heo2872 Decided December 2, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

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

1. An ordinary process is to examine the existence of a determined multiple types of compounds for the purpose of preparing the preparation of a pharmaceutical compound, because it is widely known in the technical field of a pharmaceutical compound that the same compound may have multiple determined forms and may vary depending on its determination form. Therefore, the so-called determined-type invention whose claim claims include a specific determined-type compound, which differs only from a compound publicly known in the prior invention in the pharmaceutical compound sector, in the form of determination, shall not be denied unless there are special circumstances, unless there exist any differences between the effect of a compound publicly known in the prior invention and the quality, or where there is a significant difference in quality, even if there is no difference in quality. In this case, the detailed description of the determined-type invention must clearly state that the above effect is effective even if it is not until the comparative experiment material with the prior invention, and if such effect is doubtful, it should be considered in the determination of inventive step, and if so, the effect should be asserted and presented by the applicant or patentee after the filing date of the patent application or by comparison method, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Hu614).

2. We examine the above legal principles and records.

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 명칭을 “고체 및 결정 이반드로네이트 나트륨 및 이들의 제조방법”으로 하는 이 사건 출원발명(출원번호 제10-2007-7005922호)의 특허청구범위 제3항(이하 ‘이 사건 제3항 발명’이라고 한다)의 이반드로네이트 나트륨 결정형(이하 그 명세서에서 명명한 바에 따라 ‘결정형 QQ형’이라고 한다)은 원심 판시 비교대상발명에 개시된 동일한 화학 구조의 화합물인 이반드로네이트 나트륨염의 특정 결정형을 특허청구범위로 하는 결정형 발명임을 알 수 있다.

그런데 이 사건 출원발명의 명세서에는 결정형 QQ형의 안정성 및 입도 분포에 관한 효과와 관련하여, “결정형 QQ형은 예컨대 3일간 40℃에서 100% 상대습도 하에 저장되었을 경우 5%를 초과하여 다른 다형태로 변형되지 않는다. 또한 QQ형은 100μ 이하, 바람직하게는 60μ 이하의 입도 분포를 갖는다.”라고만 기재되어 있고, 원고가 제출한 실험자료인 갑 제13호증에도 비교대상발명의 화합물 등과의 비교실험결과는 없이 결정형 QQ형에 대한 안정성 실험결과만 나타나 있을 뿐이어서, 결정형 QQ형의 위 각 효과가 비교대상발명의 화합물이나 그 통상의 결정형에 비하여 어느 정도 향상되는지 전혀 알 수가 없다. 뿐만 아니라, 기록에 의하더라도 결정형 QQ형의 안정성 및 입도 분포 향상에 의하여 비교대상발명의 화합물 등에서와는 달리 달성되는 약제학적인 효과가 무엇인지도 알기 어렵다.

따라서 결정형 QQ형은 비교대상발명의 화합물에 비하여 이질적이거나 양적으로 현저한 효과를 갖는다고 할 수 없으므로, 이 사건 제3항 발명의 진보성이 부정된다.

The judgment below to the same purport is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of inventive step of an invention as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)