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

[2] The case affirming the judgment below to the effect that the inventive step of an invention is denied on the ground that the lehydibane type (Ⅰ) of a patented invention, the name of which "the new dynabane dynabane dynabane dynabane dynabane dynabane dynabane dynabane dynabane dynabane dynab

[1] The mere fact that the same compound may have a multiple types of determination, and that the same chemical characteristics, such as hazard and stability, may vary depending on the form of determination, are widely known in the field of pharmaceutical compounds, and thus, the examination of the existence of a determined multiple types of determination for the preparation and design of a pharmaceutical compound is normally conducted. Thus, the so-called “determined-type invention” which claims claims claims a specific determined-type compound, which differs only from a compound publicly known in the prior invention in the field of pharmaceutical compound, and from a different form of determination, shall not be denied only in cases where there is a qualitative difference 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. The detailed description of the determined-type invention should clearly be considered in the determination of inventive step only when the aforementioned effect is clearly stated, and if its effect is doubtful, it should be specifically asserted and proved by the method of submitting experimental data that the applicant or patentee may trust after the filing date of the application.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below to the effect that the invention's non-obviousness is denied on the ground that the lehydibane-type determination type (Ⅰ) of the patented invention, the name of which is "the new dydibane dynabane dynabane dynaf salt dynaf salt dynaf salt dynafin dynafin dynafin dynafin dysium 1 and 2, is a final-type invention with the same chemical structure, which is the same chemical structure, which was commenced in the cited Invention 1 and 2, comprehensively considering the effect of the decline in physical use rate, melting degree, melting degree, and batch as stated in the detailed description of the invention, since it cannot be deemed that the invention

[1] Article 29 (1) and (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of March 3, 2006) / [2] Article 29 (1) and (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of March 3, 2006)

1. The term "the term "the term" means "the term "the term" or "the term" means "the term" or "the term" means "the term "the term" or "the term

1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term or “the term” means “the term or “the term”.

Japan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Patent Firm Epia et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

LLC et al. (Attorneys Choi Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2009Heo6342 Decided August 26, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the intervenor joining the Plaintiff, and the remainder are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (if the supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief) are examined together.

1. In light of the fact that it is widely known in the technical field of a pharmaceutical compound that the same chemical compound may have a multiple determined form, and that the chemical characteristics, such as hazard and stability, can vary depending on the determination form, it is normally conducted to examine the existence of the determined multiple types of chemical compounds for the purpose of preparing the preparation of a pharmaceutical compound. Thus, the so-called “determined-type invention” whose claim contains a specific determined-type chemical compound, which differs only from a chemical known in the prior invention in the field of pharmaceutical compound, shall not be denied unless there are special circumstances, unless there exist any special circumstances, from among those cases, the effect of the chemical known in the prior invention is different from that of the chemical known in the prior invention, or there is a significant difference in quality, even if there is no difference in quality, the detailed description of the determined-type invention can only be considered in the determination of inventive step with a clearly stated statement that the above effect is effective, and if the effect is doubtful, it should be asserted and presented specifically by the method of submitting experimental data comparable with the applicant or the patentee after the filing date of the prior invention.

2. We examine the above legal principles and records.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the invention of this case (patent registration number omitted) is a final invention that differs only from the determination and determination form, which is a compound of the same chemical structure starting in the comparable Invention 1 and 2, as indicated in the judgment below. However, since the detailed description of the invention of this case does not include testing materials for comparison with the cited Invention 1 and 2, it clearly states the effect of reducing the physiological utilization rate, melting degree, and mination rate and mination rate of the determined type (I) of the patent invention of this case (patent registration number omitted, and other claims shall also be indicated in the same manner as the other claims). Thus, the invention of this case must be examined in comparison with the invention of this case 1 and 2.

First of all, it is difficult to examine the bio-use rate of 19b in the specification of the instant patent invention. The value of bio-use of the instant patent invention appears to have been obtained by measuring the blood density of the 19b dysular (I). The evidence No. 52 contains the value of bio-use calculated by measuring the blood concentration of the dysyl chloride (I) with the previous dysyl chloride 2. However, the value of bio-use varies depending on the physical condition of the experimental object, the final measurement time, the size of the dysular ingredients, the preparation of administration agents, and the dosage, so it is difficult to say that all of these measurement conditions are identical to each other in order to systematically compare the experimental data. However, even if based on the record, it is difficult to find out that each bio-use rate of the above dysyl-type 1(I) is different from that of the above dysyl-type 2(I) by comparison with the above dysyl-type 1(2).8).

Ultimately, the determination type (I) cannot be deemed to have a qualitative or quantitative effect compared to the compound 1 and 2 of comparable inventions 1 and 2, and thus the nonobviousness of the instant Claim 24 invention is denied.

In this regard, the court below is just in holding that the inventive step of the invention of this case is denied in addition to the invention of this case of paragraph 24, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of inventive step of the invention of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of inventive step of the invention of this case as alleged in the ground of appeal. Other grounds of appeal are dismissed since they criticize the court below in their independent

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor are assessed against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the remainder are assessed against the Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)