Plaintiff (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Choi Young-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

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

Korean Microfaw Ltd. (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Kim Jae-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

October 10, 2007

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

1. The argument by the plaintiff and the intervenor of co-litigation that the defendant infringed the claims Nos. 1, 4, and 9 of the patent invention of this case as stated in attached Table 1. (1) of this case is without merit.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant infringed claims 6 to 8, 14, 22, and 23 of the patent invention of this case as stated in the attached Table 2. 2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant infringed claims 6 to 8, 14, 22, and 23 of the patent invention of this case is justified only for the above patent claims 6 to 7, and

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant,

(a) not use the “limited automatic conversion method” in the [Attachment 3. Request for Prohibition” or produce, sell, transfer, lend, export, import, or subscribe for assignment or sale or lease (including display for sale or lease) a computer program using that method; and

(b)shall not produce, sell, transfer, lend, export, import, or make an offer for transfer or lease (including display for sale or lease) a computer program listed in the Schedule of the Program;

C. The defendant's office, branch, office, factory, warehouse, place of business and other places mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, and the finished product of the computer program mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, semi-finished goods (goods which have the structure of the completed goods and are not yet completed) and equipment for manufacturing them.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 40 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

① In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff asserted that the patent described in the Patent Claim No. 1 through (4) and (9), and attached Table 2, among the patents described in the Patent Claim No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Claim No. 1) (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Claim No. 2), the claim No. 1, 2, 3, 7, and 21 (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Claim No. 2), among the patents described in the Patent Claim No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Patent Claim No. 1), were the cause of the claim, but the Plaintiff and the Intervenor of the Co-Litigation (the Intervenor filed an application for co-litigation at the trial; hereinafter the same shall apply in the first instance trial; hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor’s joint intervention; hereinafter referred to as the same shall apply), among the Patent Claim No. 2, the claim No. 2, 3, 9, 10, 17, and 21, and the claim No. 2, and the claim No. 2, and the claim No. 2. 8

② Change of the content of the Defendant’s practice invention and the product manufactured by the Defendant: The Plaintiff and the Intervenor changed and expanded the content of the Defendant’s practice invention and the product that the Defendant’s practice invention was conducted in the trial to “the invention subject to prohibition claim (a drawing and specification)” and “a list of programs as specified in attached Table 4];

1. Determination as to the present safety defense against the Intervenor’s motion to intervene in the Intervenor’s E&A cost

With respect to an intervenor's application for part of the patent rights of this case 1 and 2 on the ground that the plaintiff acquired part of the patent rights of this case from the plaintiff, the defendant argues that the above intervenor's application for intervention is unlawful since it is not a genuine transfer of the patent rights of this case, but a transfer of shares is made after the plaintiff lost in the lawsuit of this case and related patent invalidation, and it is a company with considerable knowledge and know-how regarding patent disputes, such as support of patent disputes and infringement investigation agency, etc.

Therefore, in a case where the assignment of claims, etc. primarily takes place, with the intention of allowing the intervenor to take legal action, even if the assignment of claims does not fall under a trust under the Trust Act, Article 7 of the Trust Act shall be null and void by applying mutatis mutandis. Whether it is the principal purpose of this case shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, such as the details and methods of concluding the assignment of claims contract, the interval between the transfer contract and the time between the transferor and the transferee, and the status relationship between the transferor and the transferee (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da463, Jun. 27, 2006, etc.). According to the reference materials submitted by the defendant, it is recognized that the principal area of the intervenor S&A project is the technical transaction, new technology information research and analysis project, patent consulting project, and it is difficult to conclude that the intervenor's assertion that part of share shares (patent share transfer on the patent register) of each patent invention of this case was transferred from the plaintiff on May 28, 2003 after the judgment of the court of this case.

2. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence of 1 through 5, Gap evidence of 5-1, 2, Gap evidence of 40-1, 2, Gap evidence of 57, 58, Eul evidence of 5, 6, Eul evidence of 12 through 14, Eul evidence of 17, 18, and Eul evidence of 20.

(a) Status of the origin, defendant, etc.;

(1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s patentee of the instant patent invention Nos. 1 and 2 (name/registration number of the instant patent invention: (i) the title/registration number of the instant patent invention; (ii) the title/application date/registration number of the instant patent invention; (iii) the date of application/registration; (iv) the date of registration; and (v) the date of automatic conversion; and (v) the patentee of the instant patent invention; (v) the Intervenor 1 is the Intervenor 1 on December 4, 2002; and (v) the Intervenor P&A’s share of each of the instant patent rights from the Plaintiff on May 28, 2003, respectively; and (v) the Intervenor 1 acquires a part of the instant patent rights from the Plaintiff on September 12, 1994, as the date of the instant patent invention’s combination; and (v) the Plaintiff completed the registration of partial transfer, respectively.

See The Defendant, as a manufacturer and distributor of the computer software, manufactures and sells each computer program listed in the program list No. 4. The program, and each of the above programs has a function to automatically convert Hangul and English into Hangul (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s product”).

B. The defendant's automatic transition function

(1) In the course of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant submitted “A”, “B”, “C”, “D”, and “E” as the flow diagram of the Han-gu automatic transition function (Method) operated on the Defendant’s product, and submitted “A”, “B”, “B”, “C”, and “E” among the drawings, were not indicated in the flow chart submitted by the original Defendant, and is merely an additional indication for the convenience of interpretation; hereinafter “Do 2” means the Defendant’s implementation invention).

B. On the other hand, the contents of “Do 1” (hereinafter “Do 1”) and “Do 2” are simplified depending on the flow chart submitted by the Defendant, and the content of “Do 2” as the Defendant’s executing invention, as shown in the comparison of both the two drawings, are not indicated in the “Do 2”’s English judgment phase (hereinafter “Do 2”) and “Do 2”’s “Do 1” as it is, without any separate indication, as indicated in the comparison of the two drawings.

In addition, the phrase “explosion” in the [Attachment 3. Claim No. 3. The phrase “exploitation” is a description explaining “purpose”, “constition and operation”, and “effective” according to the content of “Do 2.” The phrase “Do 2” also includes a case where the corresponding language is created at the time of entry into the Korea-U.S. Ruling (see, e.g., e., 504, 542). However, the phrase also includes a case where the corresponding language is created at the time of entry into the Korea-U.S. Ruling.

(c) Progress of the relevant patent invalidation case;

(1) At around 200, the Defendant did not support the Plaintiff’s patented invention by the detailed description of the claim, and did not meet the requirements of the prior invention [(1) No. 64-53265 (No. 12, Japan’s Patent Gazette), ② Korea Patent Gazette No. 93-9759 (No. 13, No. 14), ④ Korea Patent Gazette No. 1986-681 (No. 20, Samsung Patent). The Defendant asserted that the patent registration should be invalidated since a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the patented invention of this case pertains could easily make a invention from the prior invention, and that the prior invention of this case satisfies the requirements of the prior invention of this case (No. 292 (No. 12, No. 2000) and No. 21, Dec. 1, 200).

The plaintiff filed an action to revoke the above trial decision with the Patent Court of Korea. The Patent Court of Korea tried the case as the first patented invention, 2002No. 956 (the second patented invention of this case), 2002No. 970 (the second patented invention of this case), and decided to revoke the trial decision on invalidation of the second patented invention of this case on the ground that the description is not the same as the prior art invention, and it is not easy to make the invention, and that the first patented invention of this case is not identical with the prior art, and thus, it is not possible to revoke the trial decision on invalidation of the second patented invention of this case. In the case of No. 2002Heo970, the claims of the second patented invention of this case are identical to claims 1 through (3), 11, 16 and 21, 202Heo970 (the second patented invention of this case). However, the remaining (the claims of this case, paragraphs (4), (6) through (1) through (2), (1) through (2), (1) through (2) and (1) through (2) shall be revoked).

The defendant's appeal against the part against which each of the above Patent Court's judgments against the defendant was rejected and appealed (Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu2072: Patent Court Decision 2002Hu2089: Patent Court Decision 2006: Patent Court Decision 2002Hu2089); Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu2072 Decided November 24, 2006 ruled that the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed; and in the case of Patent Court Decision 2002Hu2089, Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu2089, the defendant's appeal against the above part of the Patent Court's claim 13, 16, or 200 on the ground that the detailed explanation and claim are not stated, and the above part of the patent court's decision is reversed and remanded to the Patent Court, while the remaining appeals are dismissed.

Applicant Since then, the Patent Court rendered a judgment invalidating Claim Nos. 13, 16, and 20 of the Patent Claim No. 2 of this case in the above reversed and remanded case (No. 2006No. 11091). The judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

(v)the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal has rendered a ruling to dismiss the defendant's appeal in accordance with the purport of the ruling to revoke the above decision, and the ruling became final and conclusive as it is.

3. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiff and the intervenor's assertion

(i) The description “Do 1, 2” and the description of the description in [Attachment 3. Claim Nos. 3. 1 and 2] is specified for the Defendant’s executing invention, and the flow map presented by the Defendant for the convenience of explanation is simplified or detailed by function.

D. As the Defendant’s invention, among the claims 1, 4, and 9 of the instant Claim 1, and the Claim 6 through 8, 14, 22, and 23 of the instant Claim 2, is in violation of the literal infringement or the equivalent infringement, the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s request, has the duty to take measures to prevent infringement, such as the claim 2-B and 3, and to compensate for damages as described in paragraph 3 of the instant Claim.

B. The defendant's argument

(1) As the content of the “Do 1” and the explanatory note in [Attachment 3. Claim No. 1] is either intentionally omitted the essential composition of the Defendant’s executing invention or is different from the Defendant’s executing invention, the Defendant’s executing invention should be identified as “Do 2”, the flow design submitted by the Defendant.

B. The Defendant’s invention is a separate technology that differs from the Plaintiff’s respective patented inventions in this case and their technical main points and does not have any similarity in the specific composition of technology. Moreover, since each of the patented invention claims in this case is a functional claim, the scope of the right should be limited to the specific implementation examples indicated in the detailed description and drawing of the invention. In accordance with such interpretation criteria, the Defendant’s invention does not fall under the scope of the right to each of the patented inventions in this case.

Article 42(3) and (4) of the Patent Act provides that each patent invention of this case shall be invalidated on the ground that the patent registration is not new and non-obviousness in comparison with the related technologies publicly known before the application is filed, and even if the patent registration is not yet invalidated, publicly known technologies shall be excluded from the scope of the right to each patent of this case. Since prior inventions, which are publicly known technologies, include both the patented invention of this case, the patent invention of this case does not fall within the scope of the right to each patent of this case (as to the contents of prior art to be compared, it shall be deemed to fall within the following parts).

4. Determination

A. Necessity of an intermediate judgment and its subject of judgment

In the instant case, first, it should be confirmed whether the Defendant’s invention infringed the claims among the instant patented inventions cited by the Plaintiff, and in the event that there is a dispute over “the cause of the claim” and “amount of the claim,” as in the instant case, an intermediate judgment may be rendered regarding “the cause of the claim” prior to the final judgment (Article 201(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), and in addition, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor tried to expand the claim of the damages claim as to the damages claim portion, particularly based on the Defendant’s patent infringement, in the instant case, there is a need to render such an intermediate judgment.

In addition, the term “reasons of a claim” refers to the facts that do not constitute a fact to specify a claim, which is a requisite statement in the complaint, but rather are facts as to the existence of a claim under substantive law, with the exception of compensation for damages. Thus, in this intermediate judgment, the judgment of this court shall determine whether the invention of this case falls under the scope of the right to each of the patented inventions of this case and whether the invention of this case falls under the invalid patented invention on the grounds that the patented invention of this case falls under the scope of the right to each of the patented inventions of this case, and ② the patented invention of this case falls under the invalid patented invention

B. Specificization of the Defendant’s practice invention

(1) First, the phrase “Do 2” of the [Attachment 3. Claim for Prohibition (the drawings and specifications) corresponds to the Defendant’s practice invention is as set out in the basic facts.

She also Sheet, among the inventions (the drawings and specifications) subject to the prohibition claim Nos. 3. 1, “Do 1” is simplified by function of “Do 2,” and “Do 1” is not written in the English conditions judgment phase (513 through 515) and “Do 2,” among “Do 2,” as seen earlier.

However, in the case of ① the determination phase of the English conditions in “Do 2” (513 through 515), the content meets the detailed requirements for determining whether the language in question satisfies the English conditions. Although considering the unique features of the interpretation of the scope of rights according to the characteristics of each of the claims for the instant patent invention, the above English conditions determination phase (513 through 515) is merely an additional element in comparison with the composition of the instant patent invention, and it is difficult to deem that the omission thereof was erroneous in the specification of the Defendant’s practice invention. ② In the case of the indication (561), “Do 1” as it is indicated in “Do 2,” the phrase “Do 2,” as it is written by the user in “Do 2,” the phrase “(561),” as it is difficult to distinguish the final indication from the English language description as a result of the initial determination of the language in question, and thus, it is also difficult to distinguish the phrase “an invention in question,” even if it is written in the English language description.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Code No. 3.1 of the Civil Code No. 1 of the Civil Code No. 1 of the Civil Code No. 1 of the Civil Code No. 2 of the Civil Code No. 2 of the Civil Code No. 3 of the Civil Code No. 2 of the Civil Code No. 3 of the Civil Code No. 2 of the Civil Code No. 2 of the Civil Code No. 3 of the Civil Code No. 2 of the Civil Code No. 3 of the Civil Code No. 1 of the Civil Code No. 2 of the Civil Code No. 3 of the Civil Code No. 2 of the Civil Code No. 1 of the Civil Code No. 2 of the Civil Code No. 1 of the Civil Code No. 2

However, as seen later, the composition of Claim 6 of Patent Claim 2 of this case, which is created along with the English language saving and English language saving at the time of entry, is in an equal relationship with the composition of the defendant's working invention, which is created according to the necessity after the Korean Chinese court rendered a decision on the input code, and the response code is in an equal relationship with the composition of the defendant's working invention, which is created according to the necessity after the Korean court rendered a decision on the input code, and if such circumstances are the same, even if the contents of the "expliation" on this part cannot be deemed to be specified as a specific invention of the defendant's working invention, the plaintiff and the intervenor can be viewed as the subject of the prohibition claim against the defendant against the defendant about the same part (the case where the response code is created together at the time of entry) in the preventive level (the case where the response code is created at the

In addition, the defendant asserts that the above "explosive statement" states that the defendant's working invention is erroneous as if it naturally performed the A or E phase with respect to all the input words, but the detailed description of the "Do 1" among the inventions subject to the prohibition claim (the drawings and specifications) in attached Form 3. The detailed description of the "Do 1" among the inventions subject to the prohibition claim (the drawings and specifications) in attached Form 3. The defendant's above assertion is without merit, because if the target words entered in the English code at the B phase meet the English conditions, the whole of the relevant terms shall be judged in English, and if the target words entered in the Korean code at the B phase are not written in English, all the input words, such as indicating the whole of the relevant terms in Korean, are written in Korean, and if there is no complete Korean characters, all the entry letters in

C. As to whether the Defendant’s invention infringes on each of the instant patented inventions

(1) Criteria for the characteristic of each patented invention claim of this case and for the interpretation of the scope of rights

㈎ 먼저, 이 사건 각 특허발명 청구항의 특징을 보면, ① 원고와 참가인들이 이 사건 청구원인으로 내세우고 있는 청구항들(이 사건 제1특허발명 중 청구항 제1, 4, 9항, 이 사건 제2특허발명 중 제6 내지 8항, 제14항, 제22, 23항)을 비롯한 이 사건 각 특허발명의 청구항들은 구체적인 구성으로 기재된 청구항들이 아니라, “… 하는 제1단계; … 하는 제2단계; … 하는 제3단계; … 하는 제4단계”의 방식으로, 특정의 단계적인 기능이나 작용을 기재한, 이른바 기능식 청구항(이 사건 제1특허발명의 제1항은 독립항이고, 제4, 9항은 제1항의 종속항이며, 이 사건 제2특허발명의 제6 내지 8항, 제14항은 이 사건 제2특허발명 제1항의 종속항이고, 제22, 23항은 제21항의 종속항이다)이고, ② 특히 이 사건 제1특허발명의 청구항 제1, 4, 9항과 이 사건 제2특허발명의 청구항 제6 내지 8항, 제14, 22, 23항은 “…과정(또는 … 하는 것)을 포함하는(또는 포함하는 것을 특징으로 하는) 한, 영 자동전환 방법”이라는 형식으로 구성된 이른바 개방형의 청구항이거나 그와 같은 개방형 청구항을 인용하여 한정하고 있는 종속항이며, ③ 또한, 이 사건 각 특허발명은 이른바 알고리즘(algorithm)으로 이루어진 소프트웨어 발명이라는 점도 그 특징으로 들 수 있다.

㈏ 이와 같은 이 사건 각 특허발명 청구항의 특징과 관련하여 권리범위 해석의 기준에 관하여 보건대, 청구항의 권리범위 해석에 있어서는, 특허권의 권리범위 내지 실질적 보호범위는 특허출원서에 첨부한 명세서의 청구범위에 기재된 사항에 의하여 정하여지는 것이 원칙이고, 다만 그 기재만으로 특허의 기술적 구성을 알 수 없거나 알 수 있더라도 기술적 범위를 확정할 수 없는 경우에 발명의 상세한 설명이나 도면 등 명세서의 다른 기재 부분을 보충하여 명세서 전체로서 특허의 권리범위를 실질적으로 확정하여야 하는 것이며, 그 경우에도 명세서의 다른 기재에 의하여 청구범위의 확장해석이 허용되지 아니함은 물론 청구범위의 기재만으로 기술적 범위가 명백한 경우에 명세서의 다른 기재에 의하여 청구범위의 기재를 제한해석할 수는 없는 것인바( 대법원 1993. 10. 12. 선고 91후1908 판결 , 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2004후3546 판결 등 참조), 이와 같은 법리는 기능식 청구항의 권리범위 해석에 있어서도 적용된다고 할 것이어서, 기능식 표현의 사용으로 인하여 청구항 기재 자체만으로는 발명의 기술구성을 구체적으로 확정짓기 어려워 명세서의 상세한 설명이나 도면 등을 참작하여 권리범위를 실질적으로 확정하는 과정이 필수적이기는 하나, 그렇다고 하여 그 권리범위가 명세서에서 기재하고 있는 구체적인 구성에 한정된다고는 할 수 없고, 통상의 기술자의 수준에서 보아 용이하게 치환할 수 있는 즉 균등관계에 있는 기술적 구성 모두가 그 권리범위에 해당된다고 보아야 할 것이다.

In addition, the so-called open-end claims include all the elements that are not explicitly stated in the claim of the patented invention, since there is no change in the circumstance that the invention includes all the elements that are stated in addition to the elements that are not stated in the claim of the patented invention, it is within the scope of the right of the patented invention. Furthermore, the claims mentioned in the above form are expected not only to include the elements explicitly stated but also to include other elements (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu2072, Nov. 24, 2006). However, considering the fact that the software invention, such as the patented invention of this case, has characteristics that can achieve the purpose of the invention only through an organic connection (i.e., unity) between the elements, it is insufficient to view that the invention of this case falls within the scope of the right of each patented invention of this case, in order to view that the invention of this case falls within the scope of the right of each of the patented invention of this case, the invention of this case includes all the elements of each patented invention of this case.

Under the above, the scope of rights of each of the patented inventions of this case is determined on the basis of the above interpretation criteria, and the defendant's working invention falls under the scope of rights of each of the patented inventions of this case (the patented invention of this case and the defendant's working invention of this case shall be prepared to cope with the elements of each of the patented invention of this case and the defendant's working invention's working invention in comparison with the patented invention of this case of this case of this case of this case of each of the patented invention of this case of this case of this case of this case of which the technical field and purpose thereof and its working effect are identical or at least the same category in that they enhance convenience of users

Determination as to whether claims 1, 4, and 9 (hereinafter referred to as "claims 1, 4, and 9") of the Patented Invention 1 of this case were infringed

㈎ 제1항 발명과 피고 실시발명의 대비

1) The first step of the invention of paragraph 1 is at least one term is input, and is the same as the one in which the Defendant’s working invention produces the words corresponding to the value of the word height (Do 2, 501 and Do 1, Do 1) that is successively entered from the user until the separation is entered.

2) The second step of the invention in paragraph 1 is the stage of separating the language from the word “a” and the word “a search.” The second step of the invention in paragraph 1 is corresponding to the step of confirming the existence of the investigation in the event that the entire term recorded in the Defendant’s executing invention (attached Form 3 “Do 2”) fails to satisfy all the conditions in Korean and English (521-523, 551, 552).

However, in the case of Defendant’s practice invention, it is necessary to search for the location of the unsatisfy writing from the end of the language code to the end of the word code (521) and to determine whether the words at the end of the word code are Korean language research (52, 523) and to determine whether the words at the end of the word code are Korean language research (52, 523), and to search for the fact that the words from the second word of English code to the end of the word code are converted into Korean language research (51, 552). Thus, in the case of Defendant’s practice, it is necessary to find out that there is a combination of words at the end of the word code to be separated from the word code to the right side of the words “the two separates of the words “the two separates of the words “the two separates of the words “the two separates of the words “the two separates of the words “the two separates of the two separates of the words “the two separates of the words “the two separates of the two separates of the words.”

However, although the second step of the invention in paragraph (1) is separated from the word and the word and the word and the investigation immediately are separated from the word and the word and the English description regardless of the input code, the defendant's practice invention is separate from the whole word and the word and the English description, and there is no express statement that it should be separated from the word and the investigation without exception for all words entered in the claim in paragraph (1). In full view of the fact that the patented invention in this case is scheduled to implement other components than the elements stated in the claim in addition to the elements stated in the claim, it is reasonable to deem that only the word and the investigation of all the input forms are separated from the word and the word and the English description (for example, where the whole term and conditions meet the Korean terms and English conditions and English questions) and the word and the description of the open claim are included in the scope of rights (if so, it can be seen that the composition of the invention in paragraph (1) is included in the middle step of Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 1(2).

3) The third step of the invention in paragraph 1 is a stage of rendering a ruling on the separation of words, and the case where there is no investigation and the case where there is no investigation among the Defendant’s executing invention, and the case where there is no investigation is determined whether the other part of the invention except the investigation in question satisfies the English conditions (525 through 529, 553 through 557).

A) Examining the scope of the right in the third stage of the application, the detailed description of the specification is as follows: ① detection of letters in violation of the rules of Korean characters, ② detection of letters not used in the Korean language, ③ detection of unnecessary shampk, ④ detection of English short characters in accordance with the rules of Korean characters, ⑤ recognition of Chinese use and separation in accordance with the rules of Korean translation, ⑤ determination and separation by using the English short language in which the Korean language survey is attached, ⑤ determination by using the English short language in exceptional circumstances, ② determination by using the English short language or the unique master’s pre-user’s pre-user’s name in English, ② there are four or more series of English letters. Since each of the above determination methods is not a relation between the two methods, the technical scope of the first stage of the determination in the third stage is strong, and if it is reasonable to view that the above method and the technical scope of the first stage of the determination can be easily separated from the above method and the above method are included in the three or more of the specifications of the invention as one of the three or more different methods.

B) In comparison with the third phase of the invention in paragraph (1) and the Defendant’s working invention, the third phase of the invention in paragraph (1) is judged in English or Korean as seen earlier while the third phase of the invention in paragraph (1) is judged in Korean, and in the Defendant’s working invention, it is identical to the third phase of the invention in paragraph (1) in that it is judged in terms of the fact that the Defendant’s working invention has to make a decision on the words other than the investigation in English. However, it is different from the third phase of the invention in that there is a first phase of the determination as to whether an investigation exists in the language before the determination as to the word, and in that it is not included in the third phase of the invention in paragraph (1).

Of these differences, the first step to determine the existence of the investigation is added, and the subsequent step is different depending on the existence of the investigation (the first step to determine the existence of the investigation). As seen earlier, the first step to determine the existence of the investigation is an open claim. As long as the third step of the first step of the first step of the invention, which makes a decision on the word separated from the Defendant’s working invention, includes the third step of the first step of the invention, it does not change the circumstance that even if the Defendant’s working invention added the step to determine the existence of the investigation during the first step of the third step of the invention, the second step of the invention in paragraph (1) and the corresponding step of the Defendant’s working invention in paragraph (1) invention does not belong to the scope of the right to the invention in paragraph (1).

C) However, with respect to the differences (e.g., differences) not included in the Korean language determination process in the determination of the word, the Plaintiff asserts that in the Defendant’s practice invention, the Korean language determination process with respect to the word is contained in the Korean language determination process (e.g., 503, 541, and Do 1’s “Do 1”) for the entire word, and that the Korean language determination process with respect to the word is conducted prior to the separation of the examination process. As such, the English language determination process with respect to the word in the Defendant’s practice invention falls under the same category as that of the third invention in paragraph (1).

Therefore, in the event that the entire language of the language is determined in Korean, since the language constituting the pertinent language is satisfied with the conditions of Korean language, it can be deemed that the entire language is substantially identical to that of the Korean language to the extent that the entire language satisfies the conditions of Korean language because there is no difference between the method of determining the Korean language of the language and the method of determining the entire language. However, if the entire language does not meet the conditions of Korean, the Defendant’s invention is limited to the English judgment of the entire language (hereinafter “Do 2”) (hereinafter “Do 2”) (hereinafter “Do 2”), and it is obvious that it is different from the Korean judgment of the word in Korean as to the word, and eventually, the composition of the three-stage invention of paragraph (1) is different from the composition of the three-stage invention of the English or Korean language as to the word in the Defendant’s practice invention.

In addition, as seen in the comparison for the two stages as seen earlier, in the Defendant’s practice invention, the composition that determines whether to satisfy the rules of Korean and English language language law for the entire term of the term “Do 1” and “Do 2” according to the current input pattern (the respective stages of “Do 1” and “Do 2”) can be deemed as an element added to the middle of the first and the second stages. As so, as asserted by the Plaintiff, if the Korean language determination phase for the word is between the first and the second stages, the unity of the Claim 1 invention that is closely connected to the third stage is broken, and the result of the Korean language determination is also the same, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is no longer reasonable.

4) The fourth step of the invention of paragraph 1 is to convert the word into Korean language when the word is determined in Korean language, and when the word is determined in English language, when an investigation is conducted, it is to convert the word into English and Korean language, and when there is no investigation, it is to convert the word into English language and Korean language. In the event an investigation is conducted in the Defendant’s invention, when the word satisfies the English conditions, the word and investigation is to be converted into English language and Korean language survey (563,564). If the word does not satisfy the English conditions and no investigation is conducted, it is to respond to the composition of the word and investigation into Korean language and Korean language survey, respectively.

In the Defendant’s practice invention, when the words in the language form satisfy the English conditions and an investigation exists, the composition of converting the words in the language form into English and Korean language as shown in the fourth phase. However, there is a big difference in that the words in the language form are not converted into one of English or Korean, but rather expressed in the language of the input code at the time when the user inputs the word into the language, without any investigation. This difference is attributable to the fact that the instant patent invention conducts the conversion into the Korean language regardless of the input code, and the Defendant’s practice invention is related to the input code, and thus, there is a big difference in the result of the conversion due to such a difference in the above conversion phase.

5) Sub-decisions

The defendant's invention contains the same composition as that of the first and second stages of the invention in paragraph (1). However, there is a difference in the composition corresponding to the third and fourth stages, and its effect is different. Thus, it cannot be viewed as falling under the scope of the right of the invention in paragraph (1).

㈏ 제4항 및 제9항 발명과 피고 실시발명의 대비

As long as the Defendant’s working invention does not fall under the scope of the right to the invention under paragraph (1), the Defendant’s working invention cannot be deemed to fall under the scope of the right to the invention under paragraphs (4) and (9), which are subordinate claims limited by paragraph (1).

Article 22(1) of the Patent Act concerning the infringement of claims of this case among the Patent Act No. 2 invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as "claim No. 6 through (8), 14, 22 and 23")

㈎ 제6항 발명과 피고 실시발명의 대비

1) The first step of the invention of paragraph 6 is to create the corresponding language of the key which is input until the separation is input. The first step of the invention of paragraph 6 is to create the language saving according to the key input (501) and the corresponding language saving corresponding to the existing input input input input, which is corresponding to the first step of the invention of the defendant's implementation, after the language screening of the input input input input (504,541) and, if necessary, after the English language screening of the input input input input, the second step prior to the implementation of the Korean language saving and English language saving corresponding to the input input input input input input input input. However, the defendant's implementation invention is in the first step prior to the second step prior to the entry input input input input, while the defendant's implementation invention is different from the fact that the current input input input inputs are created only after the judgment of the input input input's language is made.

According to this difference, if the defendant's working invention does not require the production of the words of the response code when the input code satisfies the language conditions of the input code, it is recognized that the processing process is simplified, but the solution principle of the task is the same in that both inventions conduct the Chinese and English judgment of the input code unit regardless of the input code unit and automatically converts the input code into the input code automatically, and it is hard to obtain the same effect as the invention of paragraph 6 invention because it is created after the input of the response code into the Korean or English judgment unit after the input of the response code, and it is reasonable to see that the detailed description of the 6 invention falls under the ordinary technical field of the invention of this case because it is reasonable to see that the defendant's working invention falls under the ordinary technical field of this case since it is reasonable to see that the defendant's working invention falls under the ordinary technical field of this case because the defendant's 6 invention has no particular ability to generate and store (or convert it into one another as the other party or it is possible to convert it into the above.).

2) The second phase of the invention of paragraph 6 is a phase of rendering the determination of Han and Youngd on the language created at the first phase, and the second phase of the invention of paragraph 6 is corresponding to the second phase of “Do 1” and “Do 2”, such as a phase of determining whether there is a completed Korean on the part of the English language entered in the Defendant’s working invention (512), and whether there is an satisfaction of the English language rules in the English language (512).

In the above phase 2, it cannot be said that the technical scope is clear because the descriptions of claims are functionally expressed. In the specification, the following are written: ① a judgment using unnecessary sheet knife k, ② a judgment using the satisfaction of the rules of the Korean Union, ③ a judgment using four or more consecutive English language knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife k.

Based on such interpretation of claims, in comparison with the second phase of the invention in paragraph (6) and the Defendant’s executing invention, the stage of determining whether or not there is an unsatisfy Korean in the English language column entered in the Defendant’s executing invention (503,542) is identical to the determination by using the satisfaction of the English union rules in the second phase (512,535), and the stage of determining whether or not the English language rules in the English language column (512,535) is satisfied is the publicly known fact, and it is also the negative rule existing in the English language and the method of determining whether or not there is more than four consecutive English letters which are not permitted in the second phase. In addition, the Defendant’s executing invention is naturally included in the first phase regardless of the current input code (i.e., the Korean language code is both made and the Korean language code is also made in the English language book). In light of the fact that the above two steps are included in the Defendant’s executing invention.

3) The third step of the invention in paragraph 6 is the step to convert the expression of words in this Section according to the results determined at the second step, and is the same as the step to convert the expression of words in this Section according to the result of the judgment in the Korea-U.S. invention in practice of the Defendant (561 to 565).

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant's invention contains all the composition of the claim 6 invention as it is, so it belongs to the scope of the right to the claim 6 invention.

㈏ 제7항 발명과 피고 실시발명의 대비

The invention of Paragraph 7 is a claim that specifically limits the second step of the invention of Paragraph 1, and the second step includes "the process to determine the language division in Korean if the language division satisfies the rules of the Korean Association; and the process to determine the language division in English if the above language section satisfies the rules of the Korean Association."

As the patented invention of this case basically aims to automatically convert input inputs regardless of input inputs into the technical idea, in order for the defendant's practice invention to fall within the scope of the right in the second stage of the invention of paragraph 7, not only in the case where the current inputs in the defendant's practice invention fall within the scope of the right in the second stage of the invention of paragraph 7, but also in the case of English inputs, each subsequent decision process should be the same as that of the above second stage. On the other hand, the second stage limited in the invention of paragraph 7 is described as "the method where certain elements are included," and it is also interpreted as the case where a separate additional stage is being implemented between each stage. Thus, it is interpreted that the subject of the treatment of each stage falls within the scope of the right.

Based on such interpretation, in case where the two inventions are subject to the Chinese language saving (e.g., the “e.,” of 502) input in the Defendant’s working invention (e., the “e.,” of 503), if the language saving satisfies the rules of the Korean Association (e.g., the “no.,” 561), after the formation of the corresponding English language saving (504), the language saving (e.g., the number of 511 through 516) that meets the English conditions (e., the number of 56) contains the composition of the English language saving (e.g., the above steps may be considered as simple supplementary composition) and the two steps of the invention under paragraph (7) contains the composition of the English language saving (e.g., the number of English language saving), and if an investigation is conducted on the English language saving subject to the English language saving, it is necessary that the two steps of the invention under paragraph (5) is not satisfied if an investigation is conducted on the composition of the English language saving, 552).

If so, the defendant's practice invention contains the same composition of the second step in the process of the subsequent determination of Korea and territory even in the case where the current input pattern is not only in the case of Korean translation, but also in the case of English translation, and the first step and the third step are included in the defendant's practice invention, as seen in the above part of the determination of paragraph 6 invention, the defendant's practice invention ultimately falls under the scope of the right to the invention in paragraph 7 invention.

㈐ 제8항 발명과 피고 실시발명의 대비

The invention of paragraph 8 is a claim that specifically limits the second step of the invention of paragraph 1, and the second step is to determine the language division in Korean when the language division satisfies the rules of the Korean Association, to determine the language division in English when the language division satisfies the rules of the Korean Association, to respond to the rules of the Korean Association, and to determine the English language when the language division satisfies all the necessary conditions of English, and where the language division does not meet the rules of the Korean Association and the necessary conditions of English.

As the instant patent invention is basically based on the technical idea to automatically convert the input language regardless of the input code, the Defendant’s practice invention should be included not only in the case where the current input code in the Defendant’s practice invention falls within the scope of the right in the second phase, but also in the case where the current input code in the Defendant’s practice invention falls within the English version, the respective follow-up decision process should be included in the composition of the second phase.

(1) Examining the case in which the words in the Defendant’s practice invention are entered in Korean language, if the recorded words satisfy the rules of the Korean Association (503’s “no” 501), the said words shall be determined in Korean (561), and if the rules of the Korean Association are satisfied, it shall be determined (504), and if the said terms are satisfied (51 through 516), it shall be determined in English (56), and if there is no investigation in subsequent proceedings (523’s “no”), it shall be deemed that the composition of the said terms in Korean is the same as that of the 2nd class of the invention of paragraph 8. However, if the words in the Defendant’s practice invention are entered in Korean in Korean language, it shall be determined in Korean language (542’s “no”), it shall be determined in Korean language (542’s “no”), it shall be deemed that the terms and conditions of the English association’s determination in five or 5’s determination in English, and it shall be deemed that there are no necessary terms and conditions of the above 531 through 525’s/57(53) determination in English.5).

Therefore, if the current input code in the defendant's practice invention is a Korean translation, it shall include the second step of the invention in paragraph (8). However, if the input code is an English pattern, it shall be judged differently from the second step of the invention in paragraph (8). Thus, the defendant's practice invention shall not be deemed to fall under the scope of the right of the invention in paragraph (8).

㈑ 제14항 발명과 피고 실시발명의 대비

The invention of paragraph 14 is an invention with the feature of determining this Section in English, if the language in the second stage of the invention of paragraph 1 is infinite. In the detailed description of the invention, the invention defines “non-Korean language” as “infinix in English language,” or “a letter which cannot be connected with the words in Korean language.”

피고 실시발명에 제14항 발명에 대응하는 구성이 포함되어 있는지에 관하여 보건대, 피고가 제시한 피고 실시발명의 흐름도(별지 3의 ‘도 2’)에는 제14항 발명과 같은 구성이 포함되어 있지 아니할 뿐만 아니라, 원고가 제시하고 있는 실험결과{한글조합이 불가능한 상태이면서 영문 어두를 이루는 문자열들(예를 들어, ar-/ㅁㄱ, as-/ㅁㄴ, at-/ㅁㅅ 등)이 다수 포함되어 있는 점}만으로는 피고 실시발명에 제14항 발명과 같은 구성이 포함되어 있다고 단정하기 어렵고(원고가 제시한 영문 어두를 이루는 문자열들이 다른 영문조건에 의하여 동일하게 나타날 가능성까지 배제할 수 없다), 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 결국 피고 실시발명이 이 사건 제14항의 권리범위에 속한다고 볼 수는 없다고 할 것이다.

㈒ 제22항 발명과 피고 실시발명의 대비

In the composition of paragraph 22, "the first step in which a term is initial, the second step in which a key is input by entering a key, and the second step in which a key is added to the corresponding one in the term, the third step in which a key is added to the corresponding one in the case of Korea-U.S., and the fourth step in which a term corresponding to the corresponding one in the initial key is generated by repeating the second and third step in the term until the separation is entered," shall correspond to the composition of the defendant's practice invention in which a word is created (501) equivalent to the value of the word key which is successively entered by the user in the order until the separation is entered.

Although the detailed process in which the Defendant’s practice invention entered the language is not specified, it seems that the Defendant’s practice invention has no choice but to process it by the aforementioned detailed composition, barring special circumstances, considering the unique characteristics of the computer operation, barring special circumstances (this point does not dispute). Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the composition of the above 4 phase is applied to the Defendant’s practice invention.

In addition to the above composition, paragraph 2 invention is characterized by the creation of the Korean language saving and English language saving corresponding to the English language saving in the fourth stage. The composition of the patent of this case, which is created along with the English language saving and English language saving in the stage of the development of the English language saving, and response saving is in an equal relation with the composition of the defendant's working invention, which is created as necessary after the Korean Chinese judgment on the input fishing control is rendered, and the 6th stage converting the language saving into Korean or English language conversion according to the five steps and the result of the judgment, which perform the Chinese judgment on the control control among the composition of paragraph 22, includes the same as the defendant's working invention.

Thus, it is reasonable to view that the invention by the defendant falls under the scope of the right to the invention under paragraph (2) of this case.

㈓ 제23항 발명과 피고 실시발명의 대비

The invention of Paragraph 23 is characterized by only the composition of Paragraph 5 of Article 22 as "if there is no English origin in the first column of the language Section, the determination of the above language Section is made in English." In comparison with the Defendant's working invention, the method of determining (503,542) whether or not there is any non-Korean initial in the first column of the language Section shall be included as a matter of course in the Defendant's working invention, and the first column of the language contains a part of the above 4-level composition, which determines that there is no Korean initial in the first column of the language. However, in the Defendant's working invention, if there is any non-Korean initial in the first column of the language, it is not immediately determined in both English, but it is also determined in the language input by the user according to the result of the examination or the English judgment of the words (561). Accordingly, the Defendant's working invention cannot be deemed the same as the above 4-level invention.

m. Arrangement of preparations

Thus, the defendant invention falls under the scope of the right of the invention of 6, 7 and 22 among the patented inventions of 2 of this case.

D. Determination as to the defendant's argument regarding the prior invention

After the plaintiff and the intervenor added the claim for infringement of the invention Nos. 6, 7 and 22 from among the invention No. 2 of this case in the trial at the trial, the defendant asserted that only the non-party No. 2 thesis, which is deemed below, is a prior invention as an known art. The non-party No. 2 thesis of this case is invalid and non-obviousness should be limited in comparison with the professional engineer's published in the non-party No. 2 thesis, and the scope of the right should be limited. Accordingly, the above thesis is limited below.

(i)Other comparable Invention(Non-Party 2 thesis, No. 35)

Attached 6.As indicated in the comparable Invention.

Whether the newness or non-obviousness of the invention of paragraph 6, 7, and 22 of the Patented Invention 2 of this case is denied by the comparable inventions or whether the scope of the right is limited by this reason.

㈎ 제6항 발명과의 대비

(i)to prepare for technology and objectives;

The instant Claim 6 invention pertains to the method of automatic conversion, which applies to the Korea-U.S. combined input device. According to the composition of the said claim, the purpose of this case is to automatically determine the Korea-U.S. Madrid as to the completed fish, and to automatically determine whether the Korea-U.S. Madrid is satisfied with the rules of the Korea-U.S. Association, and to convert it according to the result of the determination in the event that the Korea-U.S. Madrid is made without distinction between the Korean-U.S. and the English-U.S. version.

On the other hand, the comparable invention is related to the Korea-U.S. A. A.S. A.S. A.C. for entering documents, the purpose is to automatically convert documents into Korean or English on the basis of information in the time of drawing up Chinese/U.S. mixed documents through keyboards, and the contents of input documents into the diala and prior information.

Therefore, both the instant Claim 6 inventions and comparable inventions are identical in terms of the technical field and purpose of the instant Claim 6 inventions in that: (a) the term “a word inserted in accordance with the Regulations of the Korean or English Association” is automatically converted into Korean or English, from the perspective that it is a word automatically converted into Korean or English.

2) Preparation for composition

Since the invention of paragraph 6 of this case cites the invention of paragraph 1 of the patented invention of this case, it can be understood that "the technical composition of the patented invention of this case is "the first step to create a corresponding language with the key which has been entered until the separation is entered in the first step; the second step to carry out the ruling of Korea-U.S. Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad"; and the second step to convert the expression of the above language into the third step according to the results determined at the second step, the above first step can be understood as the first step to be the automatic conversion method with the characteristic of creating both the Korean language saving and English language saving corresponding to the input column."

A) Stage 1: “The stage of generating the corresponding language to the key entered until the separationr is input, and creating the corresponding Korean language saving and English language saving corresponding to the input text column,” which corresponds to the stage of creating the corresponding text saving corresponding to the key entered until the separationr is input (S01 to S09) in the comparable inventions.”

If the No. 6 invention of this case appears to have been created with the corresponding language to the date of the entry of the instant text 6 after the combination’s entry into the Korean language-based conversion process, the combination’s entry into the English language-based conversion process (hereinafter “Set H-based conversion process”) into the same language-based conversion process as that of the non-Korean language-based conversion process (hereinafter “Set 6”), compared with that of the non-Korean language-based conversion process (hereinafter “Set 6”), the combination’s entry into the Korean language-based conversion process into the same language-based conversion process as that of the non-Korean language-based conversion process (hereinafter “Set 6”). If the combination’s entry into the Korean language-based conversion process is possible, the combination’s entry into the Korean language-based conversion process (hereinafter “Set 6”) shall be deemed to have been completed by ascertaining that the number of characters entered in the new Set 2 process is 02 (Get 3) prior to the entry into the Korean language-based conversion process.

B) Stage 2: “The stage of rendering the determination of Korea-U.S. Modrid with respect to the language created by the first phase of the upper term,” which is corresponding to the stage of confirming, in the comparison of inventions, that “the input Modrid is a Korean or English version with respect to the word created by the separationr’s entry,” and, in the event that the input Modrid is a Korean translation, a confirmation is made as to whether the English language version contains the words written in the English language column (S10, S11).”

According to the description of the second stage, where the input key is not a English word, it is merely a process of performing the Han-Ulish Award in accordance with the rules of the Korean Association regarding the English section created up to the date of entry by the separate owner's entry into the English language, the comparison invention is a process of performing the Han-Ulish Award Award in accordance with the rules of the Korean Association, and it is confirmed that the input of the word, the entry of which is completed up to the present stage of S10 (Is H-Mode) is Korean or English word, and if the input book is confirmed as an English word, it is established by converting it into S13 (SH-Mode) or an English word, and if the input book is confirmed as a Korean word word, it is merely a combination of English and other English words in the current Korean language column, and it is not a combination of English and E-Ulish, even if it is possible to enter into the Korean language column into the English language column in the English language column.

C) Stage 3: “The phase in which the expression of text in the above language is converted according to the result determined at the second stage of the above language,” which is corresponding to “the phase in which the words are printed out or converted into Korean or English, depending on the input and appearance of text heat among the comparable inventions (S12 to S15).”

According to the specification, the above third stage is compared to the process of converting the corresponding language into the language column created by the separationr's writing, according to the result of the determination of the relevant language section, and the comparison invention is found to include S1 (Is English?) in the word column created in the Korean language input in the English language input, and if the combination is not included in the English language entry, the current Korean language conversion is carried out as is, if the investigation is not included in the English language conversion into the English language format, the entire Korean language heat is converted into the English language column, and it is confirmed that only the entry of the word into the English language column was made in the S10 (Is H-Mo?) stage, and if an investigation is carried out in the English language conversion into the Korean language column, it is also necessary to include only the English language conversion into the Korean language column in the English language format, and if an investigation is carried out in the English language conversion into the Korean language column, it is also necessary to convert it into the 13 (Korean language conversion into the English language column?

(iii)the preparation for effects of action;

The method of the Korea-U.S. automatic conversion pursuant to paragraph 6 of this case has an express effect that can minimize errors in the compilation of documents and enhance convenience in use by making it possible to automatically determine whether the term is Korean or English for each type of language, which is input, and automatically convert the term into Korean or English, as well as when the term saving force is completed, and as seen in the comparison with the above structure, the Korea-U.S. paragraph 6 of this case has an explicit effect that can minimize errors in the compilation of documents and enhance convenience in use. As examined in the comparison with the above structure, the Korea-U.S. paragraph 6 of this case has an obvious effect that the Korea-U.S. paragraph 6 of this case can be applied to the term that is created by the separate input, and the composition of the term is to be converted into one-U.S. according to the results of the determination, and the composition of one-U.S. paragraph 6 of this case does not have any composition that is converted into one-U.S. or its corresponding composition is different.

(iv) arranging the results of preparation;

Thus, although the technical field and purpose of the instant Claim Nos. 6 are the same, the composition of the instant Claim Nos. 6 is not equipped with the comparable invention, or differs from the composition of the corresponding invention, and this differs from the operational effect. Accordingly, the instant Claim Nos. 6 invention is not identical to the comparable invention, and it is not possible for a person who has ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the instant Claim pertains, to easily make a invention from the comparable invention. Thus, the instant Claim Nos. 6 invention is new and non-obviousness, and the instant Claim Nos. 6 invention cannot be said to fall under the scope of the right to claim No. 6 invention due to the restriction on the scope of the right to claim No. 6 invention

㈏ 제7항 발명과의 대비

The claim 7 invention is a dependent claim of the Claim 1 invention among the Claim 1 invention of this case, and as seen earlier in comparison with the Claim 6 invention, as long as the first or third step of Claim 1 invention, which is the part of Claim 6 invention, is different from the composition and effects of action corresponding to the cited invention, so long as its newness and inventive step are recognized, the claim 7 invention, which is a dependent claim that restricts or adds its component, is embodyed by limiting or adding its component, shall be deemed to have its newness and inventive step compared to the comparable invention. Accordingly, it shall not be said that the defendant's work invention does not fall under the scope of the claim 7 invention since the scope of the right to claim 7 invention is limited due to

㈐ 제22항 발명과의 대비

As seen earlier, Paragraph 22 invention is a dependent claim of Paragraph 21, an independent claim among the patented inventions of this case, and Paragraph 21 invention has all the constituent parts of Claim 1 invention, and it is limited in detail to the stage of creating a fish saving, which is the first step of Claim 1 invention. As seen earlier, as long as the first or third step, which is the constituent parts of Claim 1, differs from the comparison invention, and its composition and operating effects are recognized to be new and non-obviousness, the claim 2 invention, which is limited or added to it, is recognized to be new and non-obviousness compared to the comparison invention, and therefore, it cannot be said that the scope of the right of Claim 2, which is limited by the comparison invention, is limited to the scope of the right of Claim 2, and the defendant's practice invention does not fall under the scope of the right of Claim 22.

【Finality

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right of the above invention is not accepted because of the limitation on the scope of the right of each of the patented invention in this case among the inventions in the second invention in this case, compared to the cited inventions in this case.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff and the intervenor's assertion that the defendant's invention infringed on the invention of paragraphs 1, 4, and 9 among the patented invention of this case is without merit. The plaintiff and the intervenor's assertion that the defendant's invention infringed on the invention of this case of paragraphs 6 through 8, 14, 22, and 23 among the patented invention of this case is justified only for the part of paragraphs 6, 7, and 22 among the patented invention of this case. The remaining parts are without merit, and there is no need to render an interim judgment on the grounds of the claim in this case. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition

[Attachment]

Judges Park Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The definitions of the terms used in each of the following claims, etc. are as shown in Attached Form 5.

Note 2) In each of the instant patented inventions, compared to the use of the word “the method of conversion” automatically, the Defendant’s invention uses the word “the method of conversion” automatically, and it seems that the meaning of each of the terms itself is different.