[1] In a case where there is a change in the composition of the claims of a patented invention by a product manufactured or used by the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit, the elements to deem that the product, etc. infringes on the patent right of the patented invention, and the method of determining whether the “the principle of resolving the subject” is identical

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which held that where the patentee A of a patented invention whose name is "agricultural vinyl machine" claimed prohibition against infringement of patent rights against Eul agricultural partnership corporation Eul, Eul's practice product contains the same or equal combinations between the elements and components as the patented invention and thus, Eul's patent infringement is infringed

[1] Articles 97, 126, and 128 of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 97 and 126 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu1132 Decided July 24, 2014 (Gong2014Ha, 1753) Supreme Court Decision 2013Da14361 Decided July 24, 2014

Plaintiff (Law Firm Cho & Lee, Attorneys Exclusive-hoon et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Mtech Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeon-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2010Na2939 decided December 4, 2013

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the specification of infringed products

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just in determining the defendant's product as the product actually being carried out by the defendant when the original adjudication without any information salary class, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the composition of the organization of the subdivision of each party

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that among the Defendant’s products made of agricultural vinyl, the composition of the two sections of the patent invention of this case (patent registration number omitted); the title of the patent invention of this case (patent registration number omitted); the title of the patent invention of this case (patent registration number omitted); the title of the patent invention of this case (patent registration number omitted); the title of the patent invention of this case is identical to the two sections of the No.D. No.4-4 of the patent invention of this case (patent of this case; hereinafter referred to as “instant paragraph (1) invention of this case”), which the Defendant claimed as a molding machine for agricultural use, that the Defendant would be connected to both sides of the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right side are open and the right side is closed, and there is no difference in its effect.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing to

3. As to the ground of appeal on equal infringement

A. In order for the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit to be deemed that a product manufactured or used by the other party to the patent invention (hereinafter “infringed product, etc.”) infringes the patent right of the patented invention, an organic combination relationship between each element and its component stated in the claims of the patented invention must be included in the infringing product, etc. Meanwhile, even in cases where there are any changes in the composition indicated in the claims of the patented invention in the infringed product, the solution principle between the patented invention and task is identical, even if such changes are made, the patented invention has the same effect as that of the patented invention, and even if such changes are made, if any person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”), it shall be deemed that the infringing product, etc. still infringes the patent right of the patented invention as it is equal to the composition stated in the claims of the patented invention, barring any special circumstance. In this context, if the “the solution principle of excess” is identical, part of the composition indicated in the claims shall not be formally extracted, and it shall be determined based on 214, 201).21 p.

B. The lower court determined to the following purport that Defendant Product infringed on the patent right of the instant Claim 1 invention.

(1) Of the instant Claim No. 1 invention, the composition of “consecting section 1, 2, 4, and 5” (i.e., “consecting section, power input part, electric presses, street turging part, and vinyl supply part,” etc., of the instant Claim No. 1 invention, are included in the Defendant’s implementation product. However, at the time of the original adjudication, the composition of the instant Claim No. 3 is the front wheels, which is installed on the lower part of the front presses and comes to contact with the said high wave’s ground surface.” The composition corresponding to the Defendant’s implementation product differs from “ski day, which is composed of skis day that is installed on the lower part of the front press and sees the said high wave’s ground surface.”

(2) However, the instant Claim 1 invention and the Defendant’s used product are identical to the technical task that solves the technical problem of automation of vinyl as a whole. The composition of Claim 1 invention of this case and the response composition of the Defendant’s used product both are installed on the lower part of a vinyl machine and facilitate the movement of vinyl equipment being towed by agricultural towing vehicles. Moreover, the Ski Day generally indicates the same action effect in terms of the fact that it is difficult to use wheels, such as the operation at the lower part of a vinyl machine, and it is difficult for ordinary technicians to change such composition.

(3) Accordingly, the Defendant’s Product contains an organic combination relationship between the same or equal components as the instant Claim 1 invention and its components.

C. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to equal infringement.

4. Conclusion

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 Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)