[1] Where a patent is granted for an invention of a process to produce a product, the requirements for obtaining a presumption of production methods under Article 129 of the Patent Act for the same product as the product

[2] The case holding that a creditor who claims infringement of a patent right should prove the production method of a debtor, since the publication of a patent right by the debtor is not presumed to be a production method under Article 129 of the Patent Act because it falls under the goods publicly known or publicly worked before the creditor's patent application

[1] According to Article 129 of the Patent Act, where a patent is granted for an invention of a process to produce an article, the same product shall be presumed to have been produced by the patented process: Provided, That the same shall not apply where an article is published in a publicly known or publicly worked in Korea or a publication distributed in Korea or in foreign countries before the patent application is filed. Thus, if an identical article intends to be presumed to be a production method pursuant to the above provision, it shall be a new article that is not disclosed prior to the application.

[2] The case holding that a creditor who claims infringement of a patent right should prove the production method of a debtor since the publication of a patent right made by the debtor is not presumed to be a production method under Article 129 of the Patent Act because the publication of a patent right made by the debtor is an object publicly known or publicly implemented

[1] Article 129 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 129 of the Patent Act

Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Park Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney Yu-ju et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Kahap1012 delivered on June 10, 2003

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

원심은 그 채택 증거를 종합하여, 그 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 다음, 채무자가 1994.경부터 생산·판매하여 온 이 사건 부직포 등과 채권자가 이 사건 특허발명(특허번호 생략)의 방법에 의하여 생산한 부직포는 모두 발열성 보온팩의 생산을 위한 것으로서 통기구멍의 수와 크기를 조절함으로써 발열성 보온팩의 필수적 요건인 발열온도와 지속시간의 조절이 가능하도록 되어 있어 그 기능과 효용이 같고, 통기구멍의 천공된 모양이 원형으로서 동일하며, 통기구멍의 배열상태가 유사하여 동일한 물건이므로, 채무자의 이 사건 부직포 등은 다른 특별한 사정이 없는 한 특허법 제129조 에 의하여 이 사건 특허방법에 의하여 생산된 것으로 추정된다고 인정한 다음, 채무자의 이 사건 부직포 등이 이 사건 특허출원 전에 공지·공용된 것이라는 채무자의 주장에 대하여는 채무자가 제출한 모든 자료에 의하더라도 이를 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없고, 채무자가 일본마타이(マタイ)주식회사에서 폴리에틸렌수지 필름이 코팅된 부직포에 열핀이 박힌 로울러의 회전에 의하여 통기구멍을 천공하는 방식으로 제조한 것을 수입한 것으로서 이 사건 특허방법에 의하여 제조된 것이 아니라는 점에 부합하는 듯한 그 판시의 증거들은 믿기 어려우므로, 결국 채권자는 이 사건 특허권자로서 채무자가 임의로 이 사건 특허방법에 의하여 물건을 생산하거나 그 방법으로 생산된 것을 수입함으로써 채권자의 위 권리를 침해한 이상, 채무자에 대하여 그 침해행위의 금지·예방을 청구할 수 있다고 할 것이고 보전의 필요성도 있다할 것이어서, 채권자의 이 사건 가처분신청은 이유 있다는 취지로 판단하였다.

2. The judgment of this Court

However, this decision of the court below is not acceptable.

According to Article 129 of the Patent Act, where a patent has been granted for an invention of a process of manufacturing an object, the same product shall be presumed to have been produced by the patented process: Provided, That the same shall not apply where the product is published in an article publicly known or worked domestically or publicly prior to the filing of the patent application or a publication distributed domestically or overseas prior to the filing of the patent application, which is the same subject of presumption of a production method under the above provision.

According to the records, claims 7 to 9 of the patented invention of this case are "herat ion sloaking methods" for the subject of protection. According to the specification of the patented invention, when the patentee intends to manufacture and produce the subject of "herat sloak sloaking methods", claims 7 to 9 of the patented invention of this case can be seen as manufacturing goods. Further, the detailed description of the patented invention of this case is clearly stated in the method of making a patent application of this case with a rupture or sloak sloak sloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloaksloakslosloaksloaksloaksloaks.

Therefore, the obligee claiming infringement of the patent right of this case must prove that the obligor has produced the parts of this case using the devices or sludge, which is the patented invention of this case. However, even if it is based on all the materials submitted by the obligee, it is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize this (if the court below rejected without reasonable grounds, from around 194, there is no evidence to acknowledge it (it is only a fact that from around 1994, the obligor imported and used the directly or diameters manufactured from Japan through the method of using them by using the joints of fins, which is different from the patent method of this case, by using the joints of fins, from around 194).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the production method under Article 129 of the Patent Act and the misconception of facts against the rules of evidence. The ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)