Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Patent Attorney Yellow-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 6, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The decision made by the Intellectual Property Tribunal on December 29, 2009 on the case shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Patent invention of this case

(a) Name of the invention: Fuel additives improving burning efficiency;

(2) Date of application / Date of registration / Number of registrations: August 26, 2002 / January 12, 2006/ No. 54568

(3) Patent holder: the plaintiff;

(4) Claims and main drawings: Attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “ Claim 1 invention of this case”, and the remainder of claims is also same).

B. Circumstances leading to the trial decision of this case

The Defendants filed a petition for the invalidation trial against all claims of the patented invention of this case on the ground that (i) although the invention of this case is a general concept of Ethrasian citizens, the detailed description does not specify what kind of Ethrasian chemical compounds are used; (ii) further, the detailed description does not contain any detailed example of the combination ratio, etc. of each content of the invention of this case; and (iii) the claim of this case is not supported by the detailed description because the detailed description is not specified in the detailed description of the invention as to whether the fuel additives of this case is adjusted to any mixture according to the quality of fuel or the operating condition of the burning engine; and (iv) the remaining dependent claims of this case on the ground that there are lack grounds for lack of the same description. Following the review by the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board, all claims of the patented invention of this case did not meet the requirements for the adjudication to invalidate the claims of this case and the decision to invalidate the claims of this case on December 21, 2002.

2. The parties’ assertion and the issues of the instant case

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Ethomians of the instant patent invention refer to the Ethomians, and even if they are understood as terms of a general concept including both houseno, DNA, and Ethomians, it is obvious that the Ethomians, D, and Ethomians have the same effect as a fatal substance having the common nature and vitality. The specification of the instant patent invention can clearly understand the composition and effect of Ethomians in clearly stating the detailed technical matters concerning the composition ratio of fuel additives, including Ethomians, inasmuch as the specification of the instant patent invention does not state the specific information or action effects of each material, it can be deemed that there is no problem for ordinary technicians to practice the instant patent invention. Accordingly, the instant patent invention is not only clearly identified, but also supported by the detailed description of the invention.

B. Summary of the defendants' assertion

The Ethalian citizen of the instant patent invention refers to the Mano, D, and Ethalian citizen, and can only be seen through an experiment that causes a certain chemical activity by significantly changing the physical properties of the said 3-Class compound. Thus, only if the specific examples of implementation are stated, ordinary technicians can easily understand and reproduce the effects of the instant patent invention. In addition, the specification of the instant patent invention does not include specific technical means or examples to achieve the purpose and effects of the invention, but does not include any specific compound among Ethalian citizens and the effect of its compound. Thus, the instant patent invention cannot be seen as supported by the detailed description.

C. Key issue of the instant case

It is whether the scope of the patent application of this case is clearly and clearly stated and whether the detailed description of the invention is not stated in detail. We will first examine whether the detailed description is not stated.

3. Whether the specification of the patented invention of this case is incomplete

A. Criteria for judgment

In general, even if the specification of a patent application does not include an example in the invention, there are many cases where a party can clearly understand and reproduce the effects and effects of the invention from the composition of the invention. However, in case of a chemical invention, which is a experiment science, there may be differences according to the contents and level of technology of the invention. However, there are many cases where it is difficult to regard the completed invention as an invention because it is difficult for the party to clearly understand and easily reproduce the effects of the invention unless the experiment data is indicated due to considerable predictability and possibility of possibility, it is difficult to view that the experiment data can be presented. (See Supreme Court Decision 2000Hu2958, 2001Hu65, Nov. 30, 201, etc.). Thus, it is also difficult for a person with ordinary skills to understand the invention as an average of 200 inventions, such as a specific starting material, temperature, pressure, inflow, inflow, etc., without being described directly in the specification.

B. Whether the detailed description related to the invention of this case 1 is not stated

(1) Technical composition of the instant Claim 1 invention

The invention of this case 1 is a numerical-specific invention that limited the composition cost of the fuel additives, as it concerns "the fuel additives containing 446-194 : Ethomia, Ethalian, Ethal oxide, Fishery Cyllium, and Ethalium: 406-1710 : 885-2928 : 562-2543 : numerical-sum."

(2) Determination

The invention of this case is defined as the first component of fuel additives, and as the first component of the Ethalianian, first of all, as to Ethalianians, the term "Ethalians" is defined as a general concept including all Mono, DNA, and Ethalians, because it refers to all the materials acquired by heating together with Ethalians with the highly advanced cancer. However, only if it is not necessary to distinguish the D/L from Ethalians, it is used as a general term "Ethalians" (see the second translation of evidence No. 1-2) in relation to Ethalians, and the detailed description of the patented invention of this case is defined as the term "EA, etc." (see the above 3rd part of evidence No. 2 of Ethalians to the above 4thal of Ethalians) in light of the concept of Ethalians used in the specification of Ethalians.

However, in relation to the invention of paragraph (1) of this case, the detailed explanation is that “Amination stability system of ASEAN including Ethrasia: Ethium : roof company : 46-1940 : 406-1710 : 885-2928 : fuel additives including the weight ratio of 562-2543 : 562-11 : 12 ; see, 12 ; hereinafter, the same shall apply) is limited to the numerical value of formation cost of each of the additives; however, it is difficult to find that there is an excessive difference between the fluoral content and the fluoral content of the invention of this case without any description about the detailed reasons for manufacturing the additives of paragraph (1) of this case, or the effect of removing the fluoral content of the invention of this case, which would be difficult to find out the fluoral content and fluoral content different from the fluoral content of the invention of this case.

Therefore, since the numerical scope of the creation cost of this case is too broad, it is lacking in the detailed reasons for the representative implementation examples and the numerical limitation of the formation cost so that ordinary technicians can easily reproduce the invention, it shall be deemed that the invention of this case constitutes a case where the detailed description of the invention does not clearly and clearly state the invention so that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention belongs can easily practice the invention.

C. Whether the detailed description related to the invention of this case 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11 was omitted

Each of the above inventions constitutes a subordinate claim of the Claim 1 inventions of this case and thus includes the reasons for lack of description as examined in the Claim 1 inventions of this case. Furthermore, each of the inventions of this case 3, 5, and 11 of this case added to the fuel additives such as carbon calcium or carbon calcium, glycerium, calcium, calcium, and alcium or alcium, but claims for the scope of excessively broad rights because it does not limit the specific weight ratio. Therefore, in this regard, each of the inventions of this case has additional reasons for lack of description as supported by the detailed description of the invention.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, each claim of the patented invention of this case does not clearly and clearly state in the detailed description of the invention so that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains can easily practice the invention, so there is no ground for lack of description under Article 42(3) of the former Patent Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the trial decision that invalidated the registration of the patented invention of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)