[1] The elements for recognizing the inventive step of an invention, which is made by collecting and integrating existing technologies for public use and widely used technologies

[2] The method of proving widely known and commonly used technology in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a trial decision

[3] Whether the inventive step of the invention can be recognized solely on the ground that the product of the patented invention has been commercially successful or has not been worked for a long time prior to the filing of the patent application (negative)

[1] If a patent-registered invention is characterized by collecting and integrating the existing prior art for public use and widely known and used art, the inventive step of the invention shall not be recognized unless there is a separate difficulty in combining it, or it can be deemed that there is a new increase effect beyond the expected effect from the prior art for which the action effect is publicly known.

[2] In a case where a certain known and used art is not generally known to the extent that it can be seen as a prior or significant fact in a lawsuit, the known and used art requires certification in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the trial decision, but the court may recognize the known and used art through the materials indicated in the record, such as evidence, by free conviction.

[3] Circumstances such as the commercial success of the product of a patented invention or the absence of a person who has worked for a long time prior to the filing of the patent application can be referred to as a single material to recognize the inventive step, but such circumstance alone alone does not necessarily lead to the recognition of the inventive step. Determination of the inventive step of a patented invention shall be based on whether a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field can easily make an invention based on the prior art based on the contents, i.e., the purpose

[1] Article 29 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001) / [2] Article 29 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001), Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 29 (2) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da40563 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 971) Supreme Court Decision 99Hu1522 delivered on July 13, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1887) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu2600 Delivered on August 22, 2003 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2003Hu1512 Delivered on November 12, 2004 (Gong204Hu3546 delivered on November 10, 205)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Go-ok et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.

Patent Court Decision 2006Heo1629 Decided September 22, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

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

1. If a patent-registered invention has a characteristic for collecting and integrating the existing prior art for public use and widely known art, the inventive step of the invention shall not be recognized unless there is a separate difficulty in combining it, or there is a new increase effect above the effect predicted from the prior art for which the action effect is publicly known (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Hu1522, Jul. 13, 2001; 99Hu1522, Apr. 23, 1991; 2003Hu266, Aug. 26, 2003, etc.). In a case where a widely known art is not generally known to the extent that it can be seen as an known or obvious fact in a lawsuit for cancellation of the trial decision, the widely known and used art needs to be proved in a lawsuit for cancellation of the trial decision, but the court may recognize the widely known and used art through evidence and other records (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Hu489, Apr. 23, 191; 200Hu26, Aug. 26, 2003).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the patented invention of this case (registration No. 141506) contains previous technology on the specification of the patented invention of this case (registration No. 141506), "gold, silver, accelerator, and mercury have efficacy useful to the human body." Further, the patented invention of this case is widely known and known as having efficacy useful to the human body. Further, it is not recognized that the patented invention of this case has the efficacy useful to the human body. Further, the patented invention of this case is an known and known technology in the textile or clothing as shown in the comparison No. 3 and 5, and it is not recognized as simple complexity of composition by adopting gold, silver, accelerator, and mercury as metal materials, and it is not recognized that the patented invention of this case constitutes a new technological innovation effect of the patented invention of this case, and it is not recognized that the patented invention of this case constitutes a new technological innovation effect of the patented invention of this case, and it is not recognized that the patented invention of this case falls under the technological innovation of the original invention of this case.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the nonobviousness of the patented invention of this case is denied in the same purport, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the inventive step of the patented invention and the violation of the rules of evidence as to the recognition of widely known and used art,

2. Circumstances such as the commercial success of the product of a patented invention in the commercial invention or the absence of a person who has worked for a long time prior to the filing of the patent application may be referenced as a single material to recognize the inventive step, but such circumstance alone alone cannot be said to recognize the inventive step. The determination of the inventive step of a patented invention shall be based on whether a person with ordinary knowledge in the art in question can easily make an invention based on prior art based on the contents, i.e., the purpose, composition, and effect of the invention, and therefore, the inventive step of the invention cannot be recognized solely on the ground that such circumstance exists (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu3546, Nov. 10

In light of the above legal principles, in this case where it is not recognized that the patented invention of this case had been improved than prior art as a result of comparison with prior art based on the contents stated in the specification of the patented invention of this case, even if the product of this case was commercially successful, or no person had worked for a long time prior to the application of the patented invention of this case, such circumstance alone cannot be recognized as the inventive step of the patented invention of this case. Thus, in determining the inventive step of the patented invention of this case, the court below did not consider the circumstances such as whether the product of this case was commercially successful in the determination of inventive step of the patented invention of this case, and did not err

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)