Standard for determining whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention / Where there are any changes in the composition of the claims of the patented invention in the challenged invention, the requirement to regard the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention and the method for determining whether the challenged invention “the same solution principle in the patented invention”

Article 135 of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3806 Decided June 25, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1239) Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu132 Decided July 24, 2014 (Gong2014Ha, 1753) Supreme Court Decision 2014Hu2788 Decided May 14, 2015 (Gong2015Sang, 821)

Dag Chang-N Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Yu Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daedong Engineering Co., Ltd. and one other

Patent Court Decision 2016Heo5095 Decided February 1, 2017

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

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

1. In order for the challenged invention to be deemed to fall under the scope of a patent right of the patented invention, an organic combined relationship between each element and its component stated in the claims of the patented invention must be included in the invention subject to the confirmation. Meanwhile, even in cases where there are any changes in the composition indicated in the claims of the patented invention in the invention subject to the confirmation, if both inventions are identical with the solution principle of the patented invention, and even if such changes result in the same effect as that of the patented invention, the invention subject to the confirmation shall be deemed to be equivalent to the composition indicated in the claims of the patented invention and still falls under the scope of a patent right of the patented invention, barring any special circumstance, if any person can easily think of such changes if he/she has ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains. In addition, in order to determine whether “the solution principle of the patented invention” is the same, the part of the composition indicated in the claims should not be formally extracted, and in comparison with the prior art at the time of the application, it should be determined by examining the core method of solving the patented invention in the specification and the publicly known art.

2. We examine the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the lower court.

A. Composition 1, 3, and 4 of the instant patent invention (patent registration number omitted) Claim No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) with the title “pit pumps Safety Inn.,” are included in the invention subject to confirmation as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “instant invention”).

B. We examine whether the composition falling under 2 of the composition of the instant Claim No. 1 in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as "constition 2" and other compositions are included in the same way) is included in the instant invention subject to confirmation.

1) Composition 2 is the upper part of the upper part installed on both sides of the vertical absence, and in consideration of the combination relation with 3 composition of the “safety high part in the upper part in the upper part in the upper part in the upper part,” and the description and drawings of the invention, it can be known that Composition 2’s upper part in the upper part in the upper part in the upper part in the upper part and the safety high part in the inside is installed in the upper part in the upper part in the upper part in the upper part in the upper part.

However, the description of the claims or the invention does not include any limitation on “the form of, or the degree of, the combination of safety and high-level absence and virtual absence.” However, it cannot be deemed that the direction of checking safety and high-level absence is always limited to the vertical direction. Therefore, if safety and high-level absence is changed without any gap in the absence of 2 Gads, the absence of safety and high-level absence may cause an obstacle to normal operation, such as display or damage, by the absence of a rash.

Therefore, Composition 2's virtual absence should be interpreted as a formation formed to guide the movement of the upper half of the safety and high interest absence caused by it, and it is difficult to limit the interpretation to the composition that guides the accurate movement by supporting the safety and high interest absence so that it does not work entirely in the direction other than the upper half.

2) Meanwhile, the safety absence corresponding to the safety absence of 3 in the invention subject to confirmation in the instant case is fixed by putting in the work hub, and the upper part of the safety absence is surrounded by well-dying, salleg, and salute. Therefore, the safety absence may be moved to the upper part of the invention subject to confirmation, while the movement to the upper part of the safety stand to the lower part of the invention is restricted by clers, i.e., the other direction, i., the right or the right or the right or the right direction. Therefore, the aforementioned response composition of the invention subject to confirmation can be deemed to have adopted the same structure and operating method as 2. Thus, it can be deemed that the composition of

C. As to the response composition of the invention subject to the confirmation of this case 5 and the corresponding composition of the invention in this case

1) Composition 5 is “sprinkings installed between a safety server and a sprinks.” When sprinks are loaded, sprinks combined with a safety high-rises increase in safety and high-levels, sprinks are exposed to sprinks by increasing sprinklings in vertical intervals, and the removal of sprinks from a safety high-level body covers sprinks by moving sprinks below the safety level by the restoration power of the sprinks.

In response, the composition of the instant invention subject to confirmation is “one or more winding installed between a safety server and a fixed brokeet,” and the earthing of the instant invention subject to confirmation is installed between a safety server and a fixed brokeet. When lifting the pit pumps, if the croke’s crokekes are exposed to a safety bridge (the lower side of the safety net) and rise in it, the crop, combined with the safety bridge (the safety net) would bring in the crop pine protruding on both sides of the safety croper, and the safety crop is exposed to the fixed crop by pressing the croping to the lower side while compressing the safety net. If the croke’s crokes are removed from the safety net, it would be covered by the safety net’s restoration power to the lower side.

In other words, unlike the composition 5, unlike the sprinking composition, which combines the safety strings combined with the safety strings when the pit pumps are lifting, the response composition of the invention in question subject to the confirmation of the invention in question increases in the working hub combined with the safety strings, and in accordance with the safety string movement of the safety strackers. Therefore, both inventions are different from the method of suppressing the string and the location of the string. However, according to the following circumstances, the response composition of the invention in question subject to the confirmation of the invention in question is equal to the composition 5 of the Claim 1 invention in this case.

2) First, we examine the identity of the principle of solving the task. The specification of the patented invention of this case states that “In order to sprinke, the crephere’s crephere’s crephere’s crephere’s crephere’s crephere should be dismantled after dismantling the lower part of the crephere’s crephere’s crephere’s crephere. However, the work that dismantles a fixed crephere’s crephere without verifying the crephere’s crephere’s crephere’s crephere’s crephere’s crephere. In light of these problems, it is impossible to dismantle the crephere’s crephere’s crephere with the lower part of the crephere’s c.

In full view of the description of the specification and the prior notice technology at the time of the application for patent invention, the core in the professional engineer’s position, which is based on the special solution method for the instant Claim No. 1 invention, can dismantle a fixed voltage exposed to the movement of the safety stringer at the time of putting the string of the string at the safety string. If the string of the string in the safety string portion is removed from the safety string part, the safety string cannot be dismantled unless the string of the string is connected to the safety string part.

However, the invention subject to the confirmation of this case is also exposed to the fixed V of the safety stracker only when the stracker's stracks are connected to the safety stracks, and if the safety stracks and the stracks are separated from the safety stracks, the safety strackers cover the fixed stracks

Therefore, despite the change in the composition of the invention subject to confirmation, there is no difference between the core of the professional engineer based on the solution method and the claim 1 invention of this case, so the principle of solving the two inventions is the same.

3) We examine the identity of the operating effect next to the following. The invention in question indicates the same operating effect as the invention in paragraph (1) of this case in that it is possible to prevent accidents that may occur by demolishing a fixed voltage without connecting the safety height with the safety height in light of the fact that it is possible for workmen to dismantle a fixed voltage in the safe height level, even though it is necessary to connect the safety height to the safety height level, but it is possible for them to dismantle the fixed voltage in the safety range.

Meanwhile, according to the description and drawings of the instant invention subject to confirmation, when the body movement of the pit pumps is completed by connecting the safety height with the back of the stricker, it can be recovered by fixing the fixed string to the wall, and then drawing the safety height. Even if the safety string has voltaged a fixed string to the lower end due to the restoration power of the piting, it cannot be said that the fixed string is fixed to the pite building, and the restoration power of the piting itself does not have the effect of suppressing the fixed string to the lower end. Moreover, even if a fixed string voltages by the restoration power of the piting, it is merely incidental to the adoption of the official technical method irrelevant to the core of the professional engineer as seen earlier, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a substantial difference in the operating effect on the ground of such difference.

4) Finally, we examine the easiness of change in composition. It is merely a technical means widely known and commonly adopted in its technical field to ensure the change of the composition by applying the fashing attached to a fixed bloet, such as the instant invention subject to confirmation, to be changed or changed in a manner that the safety blocers turn back. As such, anyone can easily think about the change in the composition.

D. Therefore, since the invention subject to the confirmation of this case includes the organic combinations between the same or equal components as the invention of this case 1 and its components, it is reasonable to view that the invention falls under the scope of the right to the invention of this case 1.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant invention subject to confirmation, contrary to the instant Claim No. 1 invention, did not have any absence, and did not have any identical or equal composition with the instant Claim No. 1, thereby falling under the scope of right, on the ground that the effect of the instant invention differs due to the difference in structure and operating principles of fashing and its function. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of protection of the patented invention, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)