[1] A case where the challenged invention still falls within the scope of the right of the patented invention despite the fact that the challenged invention had a part of the elements of the patented invention as to the challenged invention.

[2] The meaning of "a technical idea or task solution principle is common or same" in determining whether the composition of a patented invention and an invention subject to confirmation is equal

[3] The case holding that the invention in question does not fall within the scope of the right of the patented invention since the patented invention and the invention in question do not fall within the scope of the right of the patented invention since the technical idea or the solution principle of the task in response to a part

[1] Even if the challenged or modified part of the elements of the patented invention exists in the challenged invention, if the challenged invention is common or identical to the technological idea or task of the patented invention, even if it is based on such substitution, if the purpose of the patented invention can be achieved and practically the same effect as the patented invention is shown, and it is obvious that a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains can easily consider it at the time of infringement, such as manufacturing the goods subject to the challenged invention, etc., as a matter of course, unless there are special circumstances such as that the challenged part of the challenged invention falls under the so-called free-to-art technology that could have easily made by an ordinary skilled person from the technology already known or known to the public at the time of filing the application for patent invention, or that the challenged part of the challenged part of the challenged invention through the procedure for filing the application for patent invention falls under the equivalent relation to the elements corresponding to the patented invention, and thus, the challenged part of the challenged invention still falls under the scope of patent right of the patented invention.

[2] The fact that the principle of solving technical ideas and tasks is common or identical means to solve the unique technical task that has not been presented or resolved in the past refers to the fact that the technical characteristic of the invention is common or identical to that of the other means to solve the unique technical task that has not been presented or resolved in the past. As such, in determining whether to infringe upon the right of equality, the principle of solving technical ideas and tasks shall not overlap with the principle of solving technical ideas and tasks, which is the basis for solving the task that is expressed in the prior art. Therefore, as the technology where a large number of technical methods are concentrated, the common or consistency between the principle of solving technical ideas and tasks becomes narrow.

[3] The case holding that the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right of the patented invention since the patented invention and the invention in question do not fall under the scope of the right of the patented invention since the technical idea or the solution principle of the task in response to the corresponding composition itself

[1] Article 135 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 135 of the Patent Act / [3] Article 135 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2200 delivered on July 28, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1954) Supreme Court Decision 98Hu522 delivered on August 21, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2110)

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Lee Dong-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 18, 2007

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 21, 2006 on the case No. 2006Da19888 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the trial decision;

A. Patent invention of this case

(1) Invention title: “A lighting device for display”

(2) Date of application/registration date/registration number: May 17, 2004/4 April 26, 2006/No. 576078

(3) Patent holder: the plaintiff;

(4) The scope of claims (the drawings are as shown in annexed Form 1).

1. At least 11) the high government (12) which is fixed to the panel of Chapter 5 (OV) shall be composed of not more than 10 non-permanent part (13) formed by the outer side and with outer part (14) formed by the outer side of 5 (OV) plus 100 (OV) adjacent to the outer part (OV) formed by the said 10 (OV) non-permanent part (OV) removed by the said 10 (OV) non-permanent part (OV); 20 (OV) adjacent to the inner part (OV) established by the said 15 (OV) non-permanent part (OV) established by the said 10 (OV) non-permanent part (OV); 30 (OV) fixed and non-permanent part (OV) established by the said 15 (OV) connected to the said sub-permanent part (OV) established by the said 10) non-permanent part (OV) established by the said 10 (OV);

2. In regard to claims 2. In paragraph 1, on the floor (15) above, lighting fixtures with a feature of the emission (16) above, in which the heat emitted from the luminous source (41) above, can be emitted further.

3. In Claim 3. In paragraph 1, a light with a characteristic that combines stacks (B1) more in V, which concludes between the above fixeding (70) and the covering (70).

4. In regard to claims 4. In paragraph 1, a lighting device with characteristics consisting of more forming sub-chapters (63) to make it possible for the outer side of the above Cerber (60) to be easily sold.

In claim 5. In paragraph 1, as a combined means with the above sub-committee and the Cracker, a fixed letter (17a) formed by this sub-committee (10) in which both sides of this sub-committee (10) are overlapped and formed on the inside side of this sub-committee (17a) are formed, and a light for drack (64) established by this sub-committee (17a) which has characteristics of extending the number of co-ins (17a) of this sub-committee (17a) to the first part of the above sub-committee.

6. For claims 6. In paragraph 1, the above sub-paragraphs (10), display (50), fixeding (70), and bags (60) shall be composed of original shapes.

(b) An invention subject to verification;

The description and drawings of a particular invention subject to confirmation by the defendant as an invention he/she is being conducted shall be as specified in attached Form 2.

C. Judgment citing a passive claim to confirm the scope of rights

(1) On August 2, 2006, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a trial to confirm the scope of right on the ground that the nonobviousness is denied by the invention indicated in the Nos. 1 through 7, a publication published prior to the filing of the patent application, and that the invention subject to confirmation differs from the patent invention of this case and does not fall under the scope of right.

(2) On December 21, 2006, the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board reviewed the invention at No. 2006Da1988, and tried it on December 21, 2006, and rendered the decision of this case citing the defendant's appeal on the ground that the invention subject to confirmation was not established with a purpose to facilitate an investigation differently from the invention of Paragraph (1) of this case, and that the composition and effects of Paragraph (1) of this case are different from the invention of this case (4), and (5), it does not fall under the scope of the right of Claim 1 of this case, and therefore, it does not fall under the scope of the right of Claim 2 to Claim 6 of this case

[Evidence 1, 2, 3, 1 to 7]

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant trial decision

A. Summary of the grounds for revoking the trial decision asserted by the plaintiff

(1) The purpose of the challenged invention is to facilitate an investigation tool as in the instant Claim 1 invention.

(2) The composition of the Claim 1 invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as the " Claim 1 invention of this case") is to prevent any fixeding (70) at the upper part of the plate (50) from leaving the hump (14). However, the invention in question differs from that of the invention in order to prevent the hump (14) from leaving the hump (54) by going through the hump (50) upper part of the external presses (50). However, the response composition of both inventions is identical to the structure and effect of the hump in order to prevent the escape of the hump while preventing the escape of the hump, and thus, the response composition of both inventions is within the same or equal scope.

(3) The composition of the instant Claim No. 1 invention (5) is merely a simple exchange of the combination (61) that was flick (60) flick (10) flick (13) flick (10) flick (60) flick (10) flick (10) flick (10) flick (62) flick (62) flick (60) flick (10) flick (10) flick (62) flick (10) flick (10) flick (13) flick (13) flick (61) flick (62) flick (flick) flick (62) flick (flick) flick (flick) flick) flick (10) flick (62) flick.

(4) Therefore, the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case, since it is substantially identical or equal to the invention of this case 1 and the invention of this case 2 to 6 inventions of this case, which are its subordinate claims.

(b) Markets:

(1) Criteria for determination

(A) If the claim of a patented invention contains multiple elements, it is not protected as a whole as an organic combination of each element, and each element is not independently protected. Thus, if the invention in question compared to the patented invention has only a part of the essential elements indicated in the claim of the patented invention, and the remaining elements are lacking, the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right of the patented invention in principle (Supreme Court Decision 99Hu2372 delivered on August 21, 2001).

(B) However, even if the challenged invention has a part of the elements of the patented invention, (i) the technical idea or task of the challenged invention and the patented invention are common or identical, (ii) the same purpose as the patented invention can be achieved even if they are transferred to such a part, and (iii) the exchange of the challenged invention is so-called “ordinary technician” to the extent that the person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary engineer”) is able to easily take place at the time of infringement, such as manufacturing the goods in the art to which the invention pertains, as a matter of course, at the time of application for the patented invention, (iv) the invention in question falls under the so-called free technical practice that the person with ordinary skills could easily make the invention from the technology already known or publicly known at the time of application for the patented invention, and (v) the technological solution of the challenged elements of the challenged invention through the procedure for application for the patented invention is not common within the scope of ideas or ideas that can not be solved after the declaration of the technical nature of the challenged invention through the procedure.

(2) Whether it falls under the scope of the right to claim 1 invention of this case

(A) Guide 1, 2, 3

The composition of paragraph (1) invention of this case (1) invention of this case (1) (1) "the research tool (10) and 20 "the research tool (20)" of the invention subject to confirmation (10) are the same as "the research tool (20) and its sub-paragraph (10)" of the invention subject to confirmation (2) "the fixed tool (30) which connects 12 to the upper floor (15) of the research tool (20) and the sub-paragraph (10)" as "the fixed tool (12) and the upper floor (15)" as "the fixed tool (15) of the invention subject to confirmation (40)" as "the fixed tool (40) and the 15th (41) of the 195th (40th) of the 195th of the 195th of the 2nd of the 10th of the 196th of the 2nd of the 196th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 10th of the s.

(B) Gusung ④

(4) The composition of the Claim 1 invention of this case is a component that enables the external franchis (14) of hybrid (10) to franchis (50) to franchis (50). Specifically, franchis (50) like franchis (10) have an inner flachis (51) with an inner flachis (14) with an inner flachis (51) with an inner flachis (51) with an inner flachis (52), and the fixed flachis (70) with an inner flachis (51) with an outer flachis (10) with an outer flachis (14) with an outer flachis (51) with an outer flachis (52) with an outer flachis (10) with an outer flachis (10) with an outer flachis (510) with an outer f.

On the other hand, the lower portion (10) of the invention subject to confirmation is also fixed to the outer press (50) corresponding to the display (50) of the instant Claim No. 1, and the outer press (50) is formed with a part (51) and a part (52) with which the upper part (14) can be adhered to the upper part (10) of the upper part (10). The upper part of the instant Claim No. 1 is the same as that of the instant Claim No. 1. However, in the invention subject to confirmation, there is a lack of organization corresponding to the fixeding (70) of the instant Claim No. 1, such as / [1] there is a lack of organization corresponding to the instant Claim No. 1 invention, and instead, there is a difference in the upper part (14) of the upper part (10) of the upper part (54) in that the upper part) of the upper part (54) of the upper part) through the horizontal part (52) of the instant Claim No. 1.

Furthermore, in light of the purport of the entire argument as to whether the corresponding structure of both inventions is equal, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 through 5, the invention of this case 1 has been able to change the light survey direction by requiring the existing lighting fixtures to change the light survey direction by using lighting fixtures, etc. or by a separate transfer method. However, although the light fixtures and body are not solidly combined and there are many components, production cost is high, and it is formed to adjust only one direction, such as the left-hand side or the upper right-hand side or lower part, and it is necessary to solve the problems with the limit in the location to change the light survey direction, the technical features of the invention of this case 4 are technical features of the 10th invention of this case, and the technical features of the 10th invention of this case, which have already been installed in the previous technology of this case, are 10th invention of this case, which can be solved by the new technical features of the 10th invention of this case (10th invention of this case) and 10th invention of this case.

If so, the above response structure of the two inventions is different from the solution principle of technical ideas or tasks, without examining whether it is clear to the extent that it would be easily derived from ordinary technicians to the extent that it is clear to the extent that the fixeding (70) of the Claim 1 invention in question would be easily derived from ordinary technicians. Thus, the above response structure of the two inventions cannot be deemed to be within the equivalent range.

(C) Gusung ⑤

5 The composition of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is related to the composition of the gaber (60) fixing the gaer (10) to the gaer (10). If a combination (61) gaer (60) is combined into the gaer (13) formed on the external side of the gaer (60) and the gaer (60) is revolving the gaer (10).

However, there is no composition that is directly corresponding to the combination (61). However, it can be said that there is a combination (10) and a combination (60) between the Bosi (16) and the Jsi (60) formed at the lower part of Esi (10) and the Jsi (60) by combining Dsi (62) with Esi (62).

In preparation for the corresponding structure of the two inventions, the composition of the Claim 1 invention of this case (51) consists of the combination (61) combination (13) combination combinations (13) combinations with the upper part (13) so that the upper part (10) is naturalized depending on the upper part (10), while the upper part of the upper part (50) parallels between the upper part (60) and the lower part of the upper part (10) line (53), if the upper part of the upper part of the upper part (50) line (50), the upper part of the upper part (62) group of the invention of this case can not be identical with the upper part (60) group of the upper part (53) group of the upper part (10) group or the upper part (10) group of the upper part (10) group (10) group of the upper part (10) group (10) group of the upper part (62) group of the invention of this case).

(D) Fixedness

In the invention subject to confirmation, the composition of the Claim Nos. 1 (1), (2), and (3) contains substantially the same composition, but the composition thereof (4), and (5) lack the same or equal composition, the invention subject to confirmation cannot be deemed to fall under the scope of the right to the Claim No. 1 (1) invention.

(3) Whether the invention falls under the scope of the right to claim 2 to claim 6 inventions of this case

The inventions in paragraphs 2 through 6 of this case are subordinate claims embodying the inventions in Paragraph 1 of this case, and as long as the challenged invention does not fall within the scope of the right to the invention in Paragraph 1 of this case, it does not naturally fall within the scope of the right to the inventions in paragraphs 2 through 6 of this case, which are subordinate claims.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the trial decision of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Sung-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)