[1] The case holding that a (A) invention compared to a patented invention for a certificate automatic clothes does not fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention

[2] The elements to constitute a "goods used exclusively for the production of a patent product" as referred to in an indirect infringement of a patent right and the location of the burden of assertion and proof of proof (=patent right holder)

[3] The case holding that it is difficult to view that synthetic resin films, which are stored in rolls, are used exclusively for the production of the automatic clothes device for the certificate of a patented invention, as they are contained in the first page, which is used for the certificate of a patented invention

[1] The case holding that (a) invention compared to a patented invention for a certificate automatic clothes is identical or similar to the patented invention; (b) composition of roll shape film in order to cover synthetic resin on the certificate; composition of the film to cover on the front and rear side of the certificate; composition of the certificate; composition of the synthetic film covered with each other; composition of the certificate; composition of heating and pressing the synthetic film into roller by using the instruments; and composition of cutting it by punch; however, the composition of the automatic grade method of the certificate; and its action principle are different; and therefore, it does not fall under the scope of patent right of the patented invention

[2] Even if a part of the expendable part that can be frequently replaced because the subject matter of the patented invention or a thing related thereto is worn out or dried, it constitutes an essential element of the patented invention and is not used for any other purpose, and cannot be widely claimed, and if it is expected that such replacement has already been made at the time of purchasing an article related to the patented invention and such a part is separately manufactured and sold by the patentee, such article constitutes "goods used exclusively for the production of a patented product" as referred to in the so-called indirect infringement on the patent right, and the above "goods used exclusively for the production of a patented product" should be asserted and proved by the patentee.

[3] The case holding that it is difficult to view that synthetic resin films, which are stored in rolls, are used exclusively for the production of the automatic clothes device for the certificate of a patented invention, as they are contained in the first page, which is used for the certificate of a patented invention

[1] Articles 97 and 126 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 127 subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act / [3] Article 127 subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 96Ma365 delivered on November 27, 1996 (197Sang, 72), Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2580 delivered on January 30, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 574)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Defendant (Attorney Park Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na29833 delivered on April 26, 2000

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

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

1. On the first ground for appeal

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 이 사건 특허발명[1987. 3. 11. 출원, 1990. 6. 21. 등록, 특허번호 (특허등록번호 생략)]은 본체의 상단 일측에 급지함(47)이 설치되고, 고정판(62, 62')에 지지되는 스크류축(33)에 끼워진 스크류나사(63)에 연결된 120°경사된 누름판(48)을 전후진 하도록 되고 증명(56, 이하 '증명서'라 한다)이 로울러(7)에 의해 공급되도록 되며, 로울러(8)에 가해지는 압력을 압력감지기(49)로 직류모우터(100)를 정·역회전시키도록 되는 것과, 압인뭉치(35)와 압인(36)이 서로 대칭되게 설치되어 편심축(28)으로 'ㄱ'자형 레버(30)를 동작시켜 압인(36)을 승강토록 되고, 합성수지 필름(2, 3) 사이에 증명서(56)가 끼워져 히이터(41, 42)를 통과시키도록 되는 것과, 크랑크축(25)과 연결되는 암(40)에 의해 절단펀치(38)가 승강토록 하여 증명서(56)를 펀칭하도록 구성된 것으로서, 위 합성수지 필름(2, 3)의 일면에 접착제가 도포되어 롤(5, 6)에 감겨 있으며 압력상한 감지기(53)와 압력하한 감지기(54)에 의해 감지되도록 되는 것을 특징으로 하는 증명서 자동피복장치이고, 피고가 실시하고 있는 (가)호 발명은 본체 상단 한쪽에 급지함(4)이 설치되고 증명서(3)가 롤러(29, 29a)에 의해 공급되면, 압인뭉치(7)와 압인(8)이 서로 대칭되게 설치되어 편심캠(23)으로 'ㄱ'자형 레버(23')를 승강토록 되고 상하필름(11, 11a)사이에 증명서(3)가 끼워져 히이터(14, 14a)를 통과되도록 되어 있고, 일면에 접착제가 도포된 합성수지(염화비닐) 필름(11, 11a)이 롤(12, 12a)에 감겨 공급되도록 되어 있으며, 히이터(14, 14a)가 탄선륜(9')을 지지하고 있는 축에 의해 회동가능한 기판(9)에 로울러(13, 15)가 설치되어 있으며 냉각장치는 회동하는 기판이 아닌 상·하부 절단칼(16, 16a)에 부착되어 있는 증명서 자동피복장치라고 인정한 다음, (가)호 발명은 이 사건 특허발명과, 그 기술적 구성 및 작용효과가 동일 또는 유사하고 그 차이는 이 분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 자가 보통으로 채용하는 정도의 변경에 지나지 아니하며, 발명의 목적과 작용효과에 각별한 차이를 일으키지 아니하여, 결국 (가)호 발명을 이용하여 실시한 피고의 주민등록증 자동피복장치인 SML-7000HP, SML-7700HP, SML-8000HP의 제작·판매행위는 이 사건 특허발명을 침해하는 행위라고 판단하였다. 그러나 기록에 의하여 이 사건 특허발명과 (가)호 발명을 대비하여 보면, 먼저 이 사건 특허발명의 특허청구범위 제1항(이하 '이 사건 제1항 발명'이라 한다)과 (가)호 발명은 다 같이 증명서 자동피복장치에 관한 발명으로서, 증명서에 합성수지제 필름을 피복하기 위하여 롤 형상의 필름을 이용하는 구성, 그 필름이 증명서의 앞면과 뒷면에 씌워지도록 하는 구성, 그 증명서를 각인장치를 이용하여 각인하도록 하는 구성, 그 합성수지필름이 씌워진 증명서를 히터를 이용하여 가열하고 롤러로 압착하는 구성 및 이를 펀치에 의하여 절단하는 구성에 있어서는 동일 또는 유사하나, 증명서의 자동급지 수단에 있어서, 이 사건 제1항 발명은 120°경사진 누름판(48)이 전·후진되도록 되어 있어 증명서(56)가 급지함(47)에 경사지게 적재된 상태에서 로울러(7)의 회전에 의해 공급되는 것을 특징으로 하고 있음에 반하여, (가)호 발명은 수평으로 뉘어진 상태로 압입판(28)에 눌러져 급지함(4)에 적재된 증명서(2)가 좌측 급지로울러(29)의 회전에 의해 공급되는 것을 특징으로 하고 있어 양 발명은 증명서의 자동급지수단의 구성과 그 동작원리가 서로 상이하므로 (가)호 발명은 이 사건 제1항 발명의 권리범위에 속하지 아니한다고 볼 것이고, 또한 이와 같이 (가)호 발명이 이 사건 제1항 발명의 권리범위에 속하지 않는 이상, (가)호 발명은 이 사건 제1항 발명의 종속항인 이 사건 특허발명의 특허청구범위 제2항 내지 제4항 발명의 권리범위에도 속하지 않는다고 할 것인바, 결국 (가)호 발명은 이 사건 특허발명의 권리범위에 속한다고 볼 수 없으므로, 피고가 (가)호 발명으로 구성된 주민등록증 자동피복장치인 SML-7000HP, SML-7700HP, SML-8000HP를 제작·판매하는 행위는 이 사건 특허발명의 침해행위에 해당한다고 보기 어렵다고 할 것이다.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of patent rights, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the act of manufacturing and selling synthetic resin is also an act of infringing the patented invention of this case, since it constitutes an act of manufacturing and selling such synthetic resin, since it constitutes an act of infringing the patented invention of this case where it is not used for any other purpose and can not be easily sought as an essential element of the patented invention of this case and the patented invention of this case, and it constitutes an act of infringing the patented invention of this case, since it constitutes an act of manufacturing and selling the synthetic resin of this case where it is used exclusively for the production of the patented invention of this case under Article 127 subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act.

Even if a part is a expendable element of a patented invention, which is either worn out or dried as a result of the use of a product that is the subject matter of a patented invention or any other related thereto and frequently replaced, if it constitutes an essential element of a patented invention and is not widely used for other purposes, and is generally difficult, and if a patentee has already planned such replacement at the time of purchasing an article related to the invention and such a part is separately manufactured and sold by the patentee, such an article constitutes "goods used exclusively for the production of a patented product" as referred to in the so-called indirect infringement against a patent right, and the above "goods used exclusively for the production of a patented product" should be asserted and proved by the patentee (see Supreme Court Decision 98Hu2580 delivered on January 30, 201).

However, in light of the records, even if the relevant evidence is examined, it can be seen that synthetic resin, which was distributed on the surface of the day, is an article that is indispensable for the production of the certificate as a cover for the patented invention of this case, and is in contact with the certificate at the time of heat melting. Furthermore, there are no materials that can be recognized as being used exclusively for the production of the automatic clothes device of the certificate of the patented invention of this case. Rather, if the aforementioned synthetic resin contact film was distributed prior to the application of the patented invention of this case, it is known that the above synthetic resin contact film was already published prior to the application of the patented invention of this case. Thus, it is difficult to view that the above synthetic resin contact film was used exclusively for the production of the automatic clothes device of this case, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as an indirect infringement of the patented invention of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to indirect infringement of the patented invention, where the court below concluded that the above synthetic resin contact film was used only for the production of the automatic clothes device for the patented invention of this case, and the defendant's production and sale of such synthetic resin constitutes indirect infringement of the patented invention of this case.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)