[1] The meaning and scope of interested parties who can file a petition for a patent invalidation trial

[2] The case holding that a patent can be claimed for a trial on invalidation of a patent on the above claims, in the case where although the patent claims of the patented invention whose name is "semiconductor test device" are not manufactured, sold, or used the same form of product, such as the composition of the patent claims of the patented invention under paragraphs (2), (3), (21), (23), and (24), such as the patented invention, was manufactured and sold, or where the semiconductor DNA test device of the same kind as the patented invention is manufactured and sold, or a method of detecting semiconductor DNA detection of the same method is implemented

[3] The case holding that the nonobviousness of the patent claim(1) of a patented invention whose name is "semiconductor test device" is "in the patent claim(s) of the patented invention can easily be combined with comparable invention 1 and 2, and thus the nonobviousness is denied, and the patent claim(s) to (10) which cited it on the premise that the nonobviousness of the patent claim(s)

[1] An interested person who can file a petition for a trial on invalidation of a patent refers to a person who has a direct and realistic interest in the infringement of the right because the existence of the right to the patent invention in question has received or is likely to receive a claim against the right holder, and includes a person who manufactures and sells, or manufactures and sells, the same kind of product as the patented invention in question.

[2] The case holding that a patent can be claimed for a trial on invalidation of a patent on the above claims, inasmuch as the patent scope claims of the patented invention whose name is "semiconductor test device" is not manufactured and sold or the same form of product is not implemented, but is manufactured and sold as a kind of semiconductor DNA test device like the patented invention or a method of detection of semiconductor DNA in the same way

[3] The case holding that the patent claim paragraph (1) of a patented invention whose name is "semiconductor test device" is identical to the cited invention 1, and whose overall composition and operation process is identical to that of the cited invention 1, and whose characteristic composition and function is the semiconductor DNA detection center, and is also limited to the comparable invention 2, but there is no limitation on the installation location of semiconductor DNA detection center in the comparable invention 2, but its installation location is only limited to the extent that ordinary technicians can easily see it according to the purpose of detecting semiconductor DNA in the tetratra, on the ground that it is not sufficient to easily see the existence of semiconductor DNA in the tetratra, the nonobviousness of the patent claim 4 through (10), (15), (16), (18), (2), (2), (2), (2), (2), (26), and (27) of the patent claim 2, which cited it on the premise that the nonobviousness of the above paragraph (1) is recognized

[1] Article 133 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001) / [2] Article 133 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001) / [3] Article 29 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Hu59 Decided March 27, 1984 (Gong1984, 705) Supreme Court Decision 85Hu46 Decided July 7, 1987 (Gong1987, 1325) Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu1256 Decided May 14, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 1014)

A. Sha Doz. (Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Cwing Co., Ltd. (Patent & Patent Attorney Kim Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2006Heo2752 Decided January 18, 2007

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. Ground of appeal No. 1

An interested party entitled to file a petition for a trial on invalidation of a patent refers to a person who has a direct and practical interest in the claim against the right holder due to the existence of the right to the patented invention in question, and includes a person who manufactures and sells, or manufactures and sells, the same kind of goods as the patented invention in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Hu59, Mar. 27, 1984; 85Hu46, Jul. 7, 1987).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the defendant can find that he manufactured and sold a type of semiconductor DNA testing device identical to the patented invention of this case (patent number omitted) under the name of the defendant as a semiconductor DNA testing device, or conducted a method of detecting semiconductor DNA detection of the same method. As such, the defendant manufactured and sold a kind of semiconductor DNA testing device identical to the patented invention of this case or conducted a method of semiconductor DNA detection of the same method, so long as the defendant manufactured and sold the same kind of semiconductor DNA testing device as the patented invention of this case or conducted a method of semiconductor DNA detection of the same method, the claim of this case can not be recognized as having an interest in claiming a patent invalidation trial against the above claims only if he manufactures and sells the same kind of product as the composition of the claim of this case under paragraphs (2), (3), (21), (23), and (24) of this Article. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the defendant can request a patent invalidation trial against the above claims, but it is justified in its conclusion, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment of interested parties or incomplete.

2. Ground of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4

In light of the record, the claim No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "claim No. 1 invention of this case", and other claims are indicated in the same manner) of this case is identical to the comparable invention No. 1 as indicated in the judgment of the court below. The composition of semiconductor DNA detection license, which is a characteristic element of the claim No. 1 invention of this case, is limited to the comparable invention No. 2 of this case as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the composition of semiconductor DNA detection license, which functions as a type of semiconductor DNA detection license, is different from that of the comparable invention No. 2 of this case.

However, in the previous technology of the comparable invention 2, the test process is limited to the case where the test process is used by the test Hand and the test board consisting of a semiconductor DNA test device of the comparable invention 1. Thus, there is no difficulty in combining the elements of detecting the semiconductor DNA of the comparable invention 1 with the semiconductor DNA test device of the comparable invention 1. Furthermore, the mobile route of the test panel is divided from the comparable invention 1 into the rost, the test department, the test part, and the rost, and the rost, and the semiconductor DNA detection report is installed. Thus, the location where the semiconductor DNA detection detection center is installed in the semiconductor DNA test device of the instant Claim 1 cannot be easily considered to be used by the person with ordinary skill depending on the existence or absence of semiconductors in the semiconductor.

Therefore, the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is denied because it can easily be combined with comparable invention Nos. 4 through 10, 15, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26, and 27 of the instant Claim No. 1 invention based on the premise that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is recognized. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the inventive step of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is recognized cannot be accepted, and the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is denied, and the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the nonobviousness of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is denied, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of inventive step of the patented invention, misunderstanding of facts, and incomplete deliberation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff’s assertion in the grounds of appeal is inconsistent with the above other points of view.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)