[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Law Firm Dao, Attorney O Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Succession Intervenor 1 and 1 (Law Firm Southern River, Attorney Lee Dong-ho, Counsel for the successor intervenor-appellant)

Korea Microfaint LLC (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Park Jae-wing et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

May 12, 2010

Seoul District Court Decision 200Gahap67087 Delivered on September 7, 2001

1. All of the claims of the Plaintiff as changed or added in exchange in the trial, and the claims of the succeeding intervenors raised in the trial are dismissed.

2. The costs incurred by succession from among the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the succeeding intervenors, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

The Defendant paid 40 million won to the Plaintiff and the Intervenor at a rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment (the Plaintiff’s claim from the first instance court to September 12, 1997 with respect to “the method of automatic conversion of Korea/U.S.” (hereinafter “the patented invention”) registered by No. 123403, Sept. 17, 1998; hereinafter “the method of automatic conversion to Korea-U.S. input”; 1,2, 3, 77, and 2; 2; 3; 4; 2; 2; 3; 2; 3; 3; 4; 2; 3; 4; 2; 3; 4; 1; 2; 3; 4; 2; 3; 4; 4; 1; 3; 4; 2; 4; 4; 1; 4; 2; 3; 4; 4; 1; 1; 2; 4; 1; 2; 4; 2; and 4; and 4; and 1. of the patented claims of this case.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall not use "the method of automatic conversion into Korea and Japan" listed in the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance or "the method of automatic conversion into Korea and Japan applied to combined input equipment" listed in the attached Table 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, or produce, sell, distribute, or export a computer program using such method, and shall not produce, distribute, distribute, or export each computer program listed in the attached Table 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance. The defendant shall discard each computer program installed in the above location of the defendant's store, warehouse, factory, etc., or goods, publicity materials, packing, etc. manufactured or manufactured using the above automatic conversion method. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 40 million won and its amount at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment (each of the attached Form attached to the judgment of the court of first instance is modified or withdrawn in whole, and

1. Determination as to the form of participation in the instant case

The Intervenor filed an application for intervention in the co-litigation by asserting that the Plaintiff respectively acquired part of the share of the patent right of this case from the Plaintiff. The intervention in the co-litigation refers to the form in which a third party participates in the lawsuit as co-litigants in the case where the purpose of the lawsuit is to be jointly determined by either party and a third party (see Article 83 of the Civil Procedure Act). As such in this case, the lawsuit claiming monetary compensation against the infringer on the ground of infringement of patent right does not constitute a case where the lawsuit between the other right holder of the patent right and the other right holder of the patent right should be jointly determined. Accordingly, the intervention in this case constitutes the intervention in the lawsuit by asserting that the succession of the right, which is the object of the lawsuit,

2. Basic facts

【In the absence of any dispute, the entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 15 through 32 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleading and video

A. Patent invention of this case

(a) Name: A method of automatic conversion into Korean territory, applicable to combined input devices;

(2) Right holder: the Plaintiff and the successor intervenor [the succeeding intervenor 1, the succeeding intervenor 1, December 4, 2002, and the succeeding intervenor P&A Co., Ltd., on May 28, 2003, acquire part of the patent right shares from the Plaintiff and completed the registration of transfer]

(3) Date of application/registration date/registration number: July 6, 1995/ 16591 of September 17, 1998

(4) Claims (the claims claiming infringement and the description of the claim-related port)

[Request 1] (Final Judgment) With respect to the automatic conversion method applicable to a single-use combined input device, the first step to create a corresponding knife to the knife which is entered until the separation is entered; the second step to carry out the determination of the knife on the fish segment created by the first step; and the second step to include the third step to convert the words in the above language according to the results determined at the second step (hereinafter “instant Claim 1” and the other claims in the same manner)

[Request 6] In Paragraph 1, the first step is the automatic conversion method into the English, characterized by the creation of each of the English languages and English languages corresponding to the input letters.

[Request 7] In Section 1, the above-mentioned 2 is the process of determining in Korean language when the above-mentioned language satisfies the rules of the Korean Association; and if the above-mentioned language satisfies the rules of the Korean Association, the method of automatically converting into English, the above-mentioned language contains the process of determining in Korean language if it is satisfied; and

[Request 21] (Confirmation of Nullity) In the automatic conversion method applicable to the combined input device of Korea, the first step in which the term is initial; the second step in which the term is input and the second step in which the term is English characters; the third step in which the term is added to the term in the case of the word in Korea; the fourth step in which the term corresponding to the term in the second and third step above are generated by repeating the above two and the above third step; the fourth step after the execution of the fourth step after the ruling in the above term; the fifth step in which the ruling in the above term is made with respect to the above term; and the six step in which the above term is converted into Korean or English in accordance with the results of the ruling in the fifth step above; the first step in which the term is converted into Korean or English.

[Request 22] In Section 21, the above-mentioned 4 is an automatic conversion method with a characteristic of creating respectively the Korean language saving and English language saving corresponding to the input text.

(b) Methods of implementing defendants;

Indication of the technical details and drawings of the defendant's method of implementation shall be as shown in the attached Form "the defendant's method of implementation" (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's method of implementation").

3. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff and the successor intervenor asserted that since the method of implementing the defendant's patented invention Nos. 6, 7, and 22 of this case is against the literal infringement or equal infringement, the plaintiff and the successor intervenor are liable to compensate the plaintiff and the successor for the damages incurred by infringement of the patent right amounting to KRW 40 million.

As to this, the defendant's implementation method does not fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case, and the claim of this case is invalid because it does not fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case, and even if it does not so, the patented invention of this case of Articles 6, 7, and 22 of this case is identical to the invention publicly notified before the application is filed and thus, it is impossible to claim the scope of the right because it is not new, or it is possible for a person with ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field to easily make an invention from the publicly notified prior invention, and therefore, it is invalid to make the defendant's claim of this case based on each of the patented inventions

4. Whether the method of implementing the defendant falls under the scope of rights to the patented invention under paragraph (6) of this case;

A. The elements of the instant patent invention No. 6

The patented invention of this case is, with respect to the automatic conversion method applied to the single-use combined input device, the first step to create both the Korean language saving and the English language saving corresponding to the key(s) entered until the separation is entered; the second step to carry out the ruling of the Korean Madrid in respect of the language created by the first step; and the second step to include the three step to convert the words of the above language according to the results determined at the second step.

(b) Confirmation of response composition;

(1) Part 1 of the first stage composition

The first phase of the instant Claim 6’s patent invention is “the first phase that generates both the Korean language saving and English language saving corresponding to the key entered until the separation is input,” and the Defendant’s implementation method is corresponding to “A phase that generates the Chinese language saving corresponding to the value of the word straw, which corresponds to the value of the word straw, which corresponds to the value of the word straw, which is successively entered by the user until the separation is entered, in the first phase of the instant patent invention.”

(2) Part of the second stage composition

The second step of the patent invention of this case is "the second step that makes the judgment of Han Young-gu on the fish sections created by the first step" and the defendant's implementation method is corresponding to "the second step that makes the judgment of Han Young-gu on the fish sections created by the first step." The defendant's implementation method provides "the person directly input by the user as a subject of the judgment or as a subject of the judgment, or as a subject of the judgment by adding the self response marological heat, and confirms the satisfaction of the English conditions for the entire fish sections, and whether there is a complete writing,

(3) Part 3 of the third stage composition

The third step of the patent invention of this case is "the third step converting the expression of the above language according to the result determined at the second step of the above term", and the defendant's implementation method corresponds to "the third step converting the expression of the above language into the two stages (in English language saving, Korean language saving, and Korean English mixed language saving) according to the result of the decision at the upper step B or D level" (in accordance with the result of the decision at the upper step, the two stages are applied."

C. Determination of comparison

Examining the first phase of the instant patent invention and the first phase of the Defendant’s implementation method in preparation for the composition of the first phase of the instant patent invention and the first phase of the Defendant’s implementation method, the composition of the instant patent invention under paragraph (6) of the instant patent invention is both derived from the English language saving and English language saving prior to moving to the second phase of the determination of Han Young Port. However, the composition of the Defendant’s implementation method is different in that only the Chinese language saving and English language saving are generated (the composition of the Defendant’s implementation method is not different from the composition of the instant patent invention, and the description of the A phase and the second phase of the detailed description among the drawings and specifications, and the description of the composition of each phase of the Defendant’s implementation method is combined, and the description of the A phase and B phase of the drawings and specifications are combined, and only the English language saving and corresponding to the value of the characters entered in the Defendant’s implementation method are created and provided to be determined at the second phase, and further, the composition of the Defendant’s urban development method is not the composition of the instant patent invention.

Examining the second phase of the patent invention of this case and the second phase of the defendant's implementation method, the second phase of the patent invention of this case is composed in that the second phase of the patent invention of this case can be determined on both Korean language saving and English language saving created according to the terms and conditions generated by the first phase of the application, i.e., the number of separate owners, but the second phase of the patent invention of this case can be determined on whether the additional terms and conditions created by the defendant's implementation method are met, and if it is satisfied without the additional terms and conditions created by the entry code, it can be determined on whether the additional terms and conditions created by the entry code are met. On the other hand, the second phase of the patent invention of this case does not include additional terms and conditions, while the additional terms and conditions are different in the composition B of the defendant's second phase of the invention of this case, the composition and implementation method of the defendant's second phase of the patent invention of this case can be determined on the additional terms and conditions created by the defendant's second phase of the application of the two separate terms and conditions.

On the other hand, the third phase of the patented invention and the second phase of the defendant's implementation method are identical in terms of the fact that the expression of text is converted according to the results of the previous judgment.

(d) Result of preparation.

(1) Whether it constitutes a literal infringement

As seen above, since both the patented invention of this case and the method of implementing the defendant's patented invention of this case are linked to the time of vertical and organic connection, if the defendant's method of implementing the patented invention of this case falls under the scope of the right of the patented invention of this case under paragraph (6) of this case due to literal infringement, the defendant's method of implementing the patented invention of this case is used not only in all the composition of each phase of the patented invention of this case but also in all

However, even if the composition of the first and second stages of the instant Claim 6 and the method of implementing the Defendant’s invention corresponding thereto are individually compared to each other, it does not coincide with each other, and as such, the Defendant’s method of implementing the instant Claim 6 falls under the scope of the right to the instant Claim 6’s patented invention by literal infringement.

As to this, the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor asserted that the first stage of the patent invention of this case only produces both Korean language saving and English language saving respectively, and they do not limit the time when each language saving is created. The specification of the patent invention of this case contains not only "a case where both Korean and English characters are created and stored simultaneously in a key corresponding to Korean language and English code," but also "a case where only one unit is stored and converted into another as necessary." Thus, the defendant's method does not create both Korean language saving and English language saving at the same time, but only English language saving is created first, and the composition of the first stage of the first stage of the patent invention of this case is also included in the composition of the patent invention of this case as provided in paragraph (6) of this case.

According to Gap evidence No. 4, the detailed description of the invention in the specification of the patented invention in this case can be acknowledged that "the plaintiff and successor shall create and store (or store only one unit and convert it to another party according to necessity) the English characters in Korean as a key corresponding to the Korean and English characters with respect to Japanese characters." However, from the description of claims itself, the first step composition of Paragraph 6 of this case is to create both Korean language saving and English language saving before moving back to the second step composition that carries out the decision of Han Young Unit. Thus, as long as the contents of the scope of right are clearly interpreted by the description of claims, it cannot be extended the interpretation of the claims by the detailed description of the invention in this case. Thus, it cannot be accepted since Paragraph 6 of this case can not be seen as being "the plaintiff and successor to the patented invention in this case's separate description from the description of the invention in this case's "the automatic description of Paragraph 1 of this case's 6 of this case's patented invention in this case's subordinate invention in this case's composition of the plaintiff's patented invention in this case."

In addition, the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenors are required: (1) the patented invention of this case is sufficient to be one means of determination because it conducts Korean and English rulings without distinguishing the language of this case into the language of this case; (2) while the defendant's methods of implementation are always subject to the Korean and English rulings, i.e., the two methods of determination; (3) one of the two methods of determination should be separately determined each time when the language of this case is entered as the subject of the determination requires two methods of determination; (4) one of the two methods of determination should be used; and (5) one of the methods of the two methods of determination should be determined separately; and (6) if necessary after conducting the determination for the Modity verification and the ruling on the Modity, it is more necessary to undergo two-three times determination procedures; and (6) the method of implementation is more efficient than the patented invention of this case; and (2) the defendant's methods of implementation are more than one of the methods of entering the patented invention of this case into the English language of this case, and only one of the defendant's complaint after the entry.

Unlike the patented invention of this case, the following facts are established: ① The method of implementing the defendant's implementation, unlike the patented invention of this case, verify the input input input input input input input, and only create the control based on the input input input input input input input input input; ② the defendant's implementation, if the defendant's implementation satisfies the conditions of the input input input input input input input, examine whether the generated input input input input is in conformity with the input input input input input input input; ② the defendant's implementation, after examining whether the input input input input input input input instructions meet the conditions of the input input input input input input input, the response input input input input input is generated only after examining whether the input input input input input input is in conformity with the corresponding input input input input input input input, and thus, the defendant's implementation method is an invention which does not have the same effect. Thus, the defendant's implementation method can not be seen as a ground that the plaintiff's and the plaintiff's successor's above ground for infringement does not fall under the scope of the right of this case's patented invention of this case.

(2) Whether it constitutes an equal infringement

㈎ 원고 및 승계참가인들의 주장

The plaintiff and the successor intervenor asserted to the effect that the specification of the patented invention of this case contains not only "the case of simultaneously creating and storing Korean characters and English characters in a key corresponding to the Korean characters and English characters," but also "the case of converting them into another party according to necessity" as well as "the case of storing only one channel and changing them into another party according to necessity." Thus, in the defendant's implementation method, the defendant's adoption of the composition of the term corresponding to the response code is within the scope that ordinary technicians can easily change, and the defendant's implementation method constitutes the equivalents of the patented invention of this case as provided in paragraph (6) of this case.

㈏ 판단

(1) Criteria for judgment

In order for an invention to be compared with a patented invention (hereinafter referred to as "invention") to be within the scope of the right of the patented invention, the organic combination relationship between each element and its component stated in the scope of the patent claim of the patented invention must be included in the invention. Meanwhile, even in cases where there are parts of the patent claim of the invention in the comparison invention, if both inventions are identical with the solution principle, even if they are in accordance with such values, they can achieve the same purpose as the patented invention, have the same effect as that of the patented invention, and if it is obvious to the extent that anyone can easily think if it is an ordinary technician, it is the same technology or ordinary technician as the one already known at the time of the application of the patented invention, or if there is an obvious exclusion from the scope of the patent claim of the patented invention through the procedure for the application of the patented invention, it shall be determined not by the detailed description of the patented invention as a whole, and it shall be deemed that the composition of the invention in comparison is equivalent to the invention as a whole, and it is within the scope of the right to the patented invention after 200.

② Specific determination

As seen above, in order to determine whether the defendant's implementation method falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case, notwithstanding the differences in the composition of the patented invention of this case and the method of implementation of the defendant's invention of this case, whether the principle of resolving the task is identical in both inventions.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 13, 24, and 26, the prior art prior to the application for patent invention No. 6 of this case was judged as a sound unit, or even if it was determined as a unit of language, the prior art prior to the application for patent invention No. 6 of this case was judged as limited to the language section entered into the Korean language pattern. However, the patent invention No. 6 of this case is judged as a unit of language, but the language entered is either in Korean or English, or both in English and English language Section 6 of this case, regardless of the input code, and there is a difference between both terms.

In light of these circumstances, the patented invention of this case is based on the "the resolution principle," where it is necessary to combine data or order language with Korean and English language, and where it is necessary to provide a method of automatic conversion into Korean and English language by distinguishing text text text text text text from English text text without distinction between Korean and English text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text.

However, unlike the first step composition of the instant patent invention, the Defendant’s method of implementing the Defendant’s implementation adopts “the composition to examine whether the applicant meets the conditions of the input code by creating only the language code corresponding to the price of the input letter,” unlike the first step composition of the instant patent invention, the Defendant’s method of implementing the Defendant’s implementation first inspects whether the applicant satisfies the conditions of the input code by type of input code, and then, if satisfied, the Defendant’s method of implementing the Defendant’s implementation satisfies the conditions of the corresponding input code without creating the response code additional form, and only if the applicant’s dissatisfaction is satisfied with the conditions of the input code, the response code additional form and

Ultimately, the Defendant’s method of implementing the instant Claim 6’s patented invention (hereinafter “the instant patent invention”) does not comply with the resolution principle that determines whether both terms are Korean or English or English for all of the following terms: (a) the Chinese language saving and English language saving corresponding to the key entered until the separate owner is entered; and (b) the resolution principle of both inventions cannot be deemed the same.

Furthermore, even if the effects of the patented invention of this case and the method of implementing the defendant's patented invention of this case are identical, as seen above, in the case of the defendant's method of implementing the defendant's method, only after examining whether the term produced by the input input input input input is in conformity with the relevant input input conditions, it may cause an error in the English input. Thus, as long as the response input information in the process of creating response input is lost, it cannot be deemed that the two inventions have the same effect, and thus, the plaintiff and the successor's assertion to the effect that the defendant's method of implementing the defendant's patented invention of this case is equivalent to the patented invention of this case of paragraph 6 of this case, cannot be accepted.

㈐ 소결론

Therefore, the defendant method does not constitute the equal infringement of the patented invention under Paragraph 6 of this case.

5. Whether the method of implementing the defendant falls under the scope of rights to the patented invention under paragraph (7) of this case;

A. The elements of the instant patent invention No. 7

The patented invention of this case is, with respect to the automatic conversion method applied to the single-use combined input device, the first step to create the corresponding language of the key which was entered until the separation is entered; with respect to the language created by the first step above, the process to determine the language division in Korean upon satisfaction of the rules of the Korean Association; and the second step to determine the language division in English if the above language satisfies the rules of the Korean Association; and the second step to determine the language division in English; and the second step to include the third step to convert the words of the above language as determined at the second step.

(b) Confirmation of response composition;

(1) Part 1 of the first stage composition

The first phase of the instant patent invention is “the first phase of the automatic conversion method applied to a single-use combined input device, which creates the corresponding language with the key input until the separation is input,” and the Defendant’s implementation method is corresponding to “A phase which produces the word heat corresponding to the value of the word key inputs in the order of the user until the separate user is input, in the first phase of the instant patent invention in the first phase of the instant patent invention.” The Defendant’s implementation method, “the first phase of the instant patent invention, the first phase of which generates the word heat corresponding to the value of the word key inputs in the order of the user until the separate user is input.”

(2) Part of the second stage composition

The second phase of the instant patent invention is “the process of determining the language division in the Korean language with respect to the language section created by the first phase of the award; and the second phase of determining the language division in the English language when the above language section satisfies the rules of the Korean Association; and the Defendant’s implementation method is corresponding to “the two phase of determining the language division in the English language when the language division is dissatisfied with the rules of the Korean Association.” The Defendant’s implementation method provides the users with the language column directly entered by the user as the subject of the award, or provides them as the subject of an additional determination by creating the independent response letter column, and the two phase of determining the Chinese language division by confirming whether the entire language section is satisfied with the English conditions, and whether there is any complete language.”

(3) Part 3 of the third stage composition

The third phase of the instant patent invention is “the phase of converting the text expression of the above language according to the result determined at the second phase of the above term,” and the Defendant’s implementation method is corresponding to “the E phase of converting the text expression of the subject language into the suitable language (in English language, Korean language, and Chinese mixed language) according to the result of the foregoing phase B or D’s determination.”

C. Determination of comparison

(1) Stage 1 and 3 parts

The first phase of the instant patent invention and the second phase of the Defendant’s implementation method are the same in that they are inputs of language saving letters classified by the separationr in the automatic conversion method applied to the document entry method. The third phase of the instant patent invention and the second phase of the Defendant’s implementation method are the same in that the three phase of the instant patent invention and the second phase of the instant patent invention are the transition phase according to the results of the previous judgment.

(2) Part of the second stage composition

㈎ 구체적인 구성의 대비

The second phase composition of the instant patent invention is determined in Korean language when the language created in the first phase composition satisfies the rules of the Korean Association, and is determined in English when the rules of the Korean Association are satisfied. According to the evidence No. 4, the detailed process to determine whether to satisfy the rules of the instant patent invention, the specification of the instant patent invention, the detailed process to determine whether to meet the rules of the Korean Association, and the rules of the Korean Association shall be determined to satisfy the rules of the Korean Association, but if any one of the above two conditions is not satisfied, the fact that the said rules of the Korean Association are written to be determined to satisfy the said rules of the Korean Association can be acknowledged.

On the other hand, in the B-stage composition of the defendant implementation method, after examining whether one of the terms produced in the A-stage composition is satisfied with the English conditions, i.e., the existence of a complete text, and whether the conditions of the input code exist, the defendant implementation method shall make a determination by the same method as to the terms created in addition to the response code only when the decision is terminated without the addition of response code, and the response code is satisfied with the conditions of the input code, and only when the defendant implementation method satisfies the conditions of the input code, the decision shall be made without the addition of response code. However, in the part of the explanation of the detailed description among the drawings and specifications of the defendant implementation method, the absence of a complete text means that the relevant language is not completed by the Korean language code, i.e., the situation in which the Korean language code has not been completed by the association. Thus, the "cases where there is no complete text" of the defendant implementation method means the same meaning as the "cases meeting the requirements of the Korean language association rules" of the patented invention of this case.

The second step of the invention of this case is using a common method of determination without the classification of the input e.g., the defendant's methods of implementation different from the input e.g., the two different methods of determination by the input e.g., the two separate methods of determination by the input e.g., the defendant's two separate methods of determination by the input e.g., the two separate methods of determination by the entry e., the two separate methods of determination by the entry e.g., the entire English language e., the ruling shall be terminated if the entire English language e.g., the entry e., the whole English language e., the entry e., the English language e., the entry e., the English language e., the English language e., the combination e., the combination e., the two separate methods of determination by the entry e.g., the whole English language e., the English language e., the combination e., the English language e., the combination e.

㈏ 판단

As seen above, in the B stage of Defendant’s implementation method, the following elements are met: (a) the target language division satisfies the English terms and conditions; and (b) the response language division satisfies the Korean rules of the Korean Association; (c) the target language division does not have the composition of the Korean language division; (d) the target language division does not have the composition of the Korean language division; and (e) the response language division satisfies the English language union rules; (e) the response language division satisfies the English language union rules; (e) the response language division satisfies the English language union rules; and (e) even if there is no investigation or an investigation exists, the separate language of the examination meets the English language division; (e) the composition of the target language division is not provided with the “organization determined in English if the target language division satisfies the rules of the Korean Association; and (e) the composition of the target language division and the composition of the English language association rules of the English language division is not satisfied; and (e) the composition of the target of the English complaint is not satisfied with the composition of the applicable rules of the Korean language association.

Furthermore, as to whether the difference between the two components causes a difference in the effects of both inventions, the patented invention of this case is judged in English and converted into English when the words subject to the determination meet the rules of the Korean Association. However, the defendant's implementation methods include: (a) where the words subject to the determination meet the English conditions and the response of the said words meet the rules of the Korean Association; (b) where an investigation is conducted even if the said words satisfy the English conditions and the response of the said rules of the Association, the examination is separated if the said investigation is conducted; (c) where the words meet the English conditions after examining whether the words meet the English conditions (a combination of English language and Korean language research) is converted into English (E-13); (d) In the Korean War War War, even if the pertinent words meet the rules of the Korean Association even if the responding words meet the English association, if an investigation is not conducted; and (d) where the two or more terms of the English language converted into Korean characters are omitted, the entire English characters is indicated by waivering the existence of the investigation; and (e) where the two or more terms of the two or more terms of the English language converted are different.

㈐ 원고 및 승계참가인들의 주장에 관한 판단

As to this, the plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor asserted to the effect that the method of implementing the defendant's invention falls within the scope of the right of the patented invention of this case as it added another composition with the composition of the second step of the patented invention of this case as it is.

However, as seen above, although the two stages of the defendant's methods of implementing the two inventions are simply equipped with "a composition to determine in Korean language when the target language satisfies the rules of the Korean Association," the above composition does not have the same composition in English name, and even in the English name, where the target language is not simply equipped with "a composition to determine in English if the target language satisfies the rules of the Korean Association," and due to such differences in the composition, so long as the result of the determination of the Chinese characters of both inventions differs from the result of the determination of the two inventions, the defendant's methods of implementing the two inventions cannot be deemed to include the composition of the patented invention of paragraph (7) of this case, and thus, the plaintiff and the successor's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(d) Result of preparation.

As seen above, there is a difference in the composition of the second phase of the patented invention of this case and the method of implementation of the defendant corresponding thereto, and thereby there is a difference in the effects of both inventions. As such, the defendant's method of implementation does not fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case under paragraph

6. Whether the method of implementing the defendant falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention under paragraph (22) of this case;

A. The elements of the instant patent invention No. 22

The patented invention of this case is the first step in which the language is initial; the second step in which the term is converted into one language; the second step in which the term is converted into one language; the third step in which the term is added in the case of the English language of the above key; the fourth step in which the two steps and the third step in the above three steps are repeated until the separation is entered; the fourth step in which the two steps and the above three steps are generated in the Korean language saving and English language saving corresponding to the key(s) entered; the fourth step after the execution of the fourth step, the fifth step in which the ruling on the above term is made with respect to the above term; and the fifth step in accordance with the results of the ruling of the above five steps, the first step in which the above term is converted into Korean or English, and the second step in which the above term is converted into six steps.

(b) Confirmation of response composition;

(1) Parts of the 1 to 4 steps

The 1 to 4th composition of the instant patent invention is “the first step in which the term is initial in the automatic conversion method applied to the single-use mixed input device; the second step in which the term is input after the entry of the key; the second step in which the term is English; the second step in which the term is added to the term in which the corresponding key is added to the term in the above third step; the fourth step in which the corresponding key is created respectively by repeating the above 2 and the above 3 steps until the separation is entered; and the fourth step in which the corresponding Korean language and English language corresponding to the key being entered are generated by repeating the above 2 steps and the above 3 steps;” and the Defendant’s implementation methods are “the one used mainly in the automatic conversion method, such as the computer word protocol, liquid point, email point, e-mail document editing, searcher, etc.”.

(2) Stage 5

The 5th composition of the instant patent invention is “the 5th phase, after the implementation of the 4th phase, the ruling on the above fish Section”. The Defendant’s implementation method is corresponding to “the two phase, after the implementation of the 4th phase, either providing the users with the language saving directly input, or providing them subject to the determination by adding the self response code, and verifying whether the entire language saving subject to the determination satisfies the English conditions, and whether there is any complete language, and determining the Chinese language.”

(3) Stage 6.

The 6th phase of the instant patent invention is “the 6th phase converting the above language to Korean or English in accordance with the result of the judgment in the 5th phase”, and in the Defendant’s implementation method, “the E phase converting the language of the subject language into the English language saving, Korean language saving, and Chinese mixed language saving) according to the result of the judgment in the 6th phase or D phase” is corresponding thereto.

C. Determination

Examining the structure of the first through fourth phase of the instant patent invention and the fourth phase of the Defendant’s implementation method in preparation for the composition of the first through fourth phase of the instant patent invention, the composition of the first through fourth phase of the instant patent invention under Article 22 is all created in Korean language saving and English language saving prior to moving to the fifth phase of the determination of Han Young Port. However, there is a difference in the composition in that the Defendant’s implementation method produces only the term saving text corresponding to the word key value entered in the first, second, and third phase of the instant patent invention under Article 22 of the instant patent invention (the Defendant’s implementation method does not specifically indicate the detailed process of entering the term, but such detailed process is the basic characteristics of general computer operation and thus, it is deemed that the composition of the first, second, and third phase of the instant patent invention under Article 22 of the instant patent invention is also included in the Defendant’s implementation method).

Examining the 5th phase and the 5th phase of the patent invention of this case in comparison with the composition and the 5th phase of the defendant, the 5th phase of the patent invention of this case in the 22nd phase of the patent invention of this case can be determined on the 1 through 4th phase of the patent invention of this case. The 5th phase of the patent invention of this case in the 2nd phase of the defendant. The 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the patent invention of this case can be determined on the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the patent invention of this case. The 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the patent invention of this case can be determined on the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the 5th phase of the patent invention of this case, on the other hand, the 4th phase of the patent invention of this case does not include additional language composition and the 5th phase of the 2nd phase of the 2nd phase of the 2nd.

On the other hand, the 6th and the 5th step of the patent invention of this case and the 6th step of the defendant's implementation method are identical in that the expression of text is converted according to the results of the previous judgment.

(d) Result of preparation.

As seen above, the composition of the fourth and fifth stages of the instant Claim 22 and the composition of the Defendant’s method of implementing the instant Claim 22 are not identical individually from each other, and the cross-affiliated and organic connection is not different. This difference is identical to the outcome of preparing the composition of the Defendant’s method of implementing the instant Claim 6 in the first and second stages of the instant Claim 6 and corresponding thereto. As such, the Defendant’s method of implementing the instant Claim 6 falls under the scope of the right to the instant Claim 6’s patented invention on the grounds as seen above, does not fall under the patented invention of the instant Claim 22.

7. Conclusion

If so, insofar as the method of implementing the defendant does not fall within the scope of the right to patented invention of this case, the plaintiff's claim that was changed or added in exchange in the trial, and the successor's claim that was raised in the trial, are all dismissed (the plaintiff's claim before the change was withdrawn from exchange due to the change of exchange, and the judgment of the court of first instance became null and void). It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Judge)