If it is indicated that another patent method is used while using the patented method, the nature of the patent infringement;

If an advertisement, signboard, or label manufactured by using a patented method and indicated as if it was manufactured by using another patented method other than the patent, the act of infringing the patent right of the patentee constitutes an infringement of patent under Article 158(1) of the Patent Act and does not fall under Article 160 subparag. 5 of the Patent Act.

Articles 158(1) and 160 subparag. 5 of the Patent Act

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 82No1293 delivered on April 15, 1983

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

1. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court of first instance recognizes the fact that the defendant only has the right to exclusively use the production of the production method of the plaintiff's long-term and 2 other patent No. 5814 of the Patent Act, and even though there is no right to sell it, the defendant manufactured an average of 400 kilograms per day at 180,000 won and sold it to a day in Seoul, and infringed the above patentee's right. In light of the records, the evidence of the court of first instance admitted by the court of first instance, it is sufficiently recognized that the above facts of the judgment were sufficiently recognized and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of fact-finding or evidence preparation.

2. Doin ex officio.

(1) In addition to the facts set forth in the preceding paragraph, the first instance judgment acknowledged the fact that the Defendant, based on the macroscopic evidence, did not manufacture the above patented 5814 using the manufacturing method, and produced an average of 400 kilograms per day with the manufacturing method of the patent 4221 owned by the injured scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sp

(2) However, Article 160 Subparag. 5 of the Patent Act provides, however, that an act indicating the method as a patent or patent application is subject to punishment for the use of a method other than a patent or patent application. Thus, Article 160 Subparag. 5 of the Patent Act cannot be deemed as falling under Article 160 Subparag. 5 of the Patent Act where an act of infringing a patent right by using an advertisement, signboard, or label, which is already manufactured by using a patented method, if it is indicated as if it was manufactured by using a non-patent method other than the patent, but it is indicated as if it were manufactured by using a non-patent method.

At the time of the above one trial, even if based on the fact-finding itself, the defendant did not use the manufacturing method other than the patented one, but used the manufacturing method under Article 4221 of the Patent Act owned by the victim. However, since the above act was indicated as if the manufacturing method under Article 5814 of the Patent Act was not the above patent, it is clear that the above act constitutes an act infringing the patent right of the victim, and it does not constitute Article 158 (1) 1 of the Patent Act, but it does not constitute Article 160 subparagraph 5 of the Patent Act. In this regard, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal application.

(3) Furthermore, according to the records, the evidence that the defendant was manufactured by the manufacturing method under Article 4221 of the Patent Act owned by the above victim is proved to be consistent with the court below's decision, and the prosecutor and judicial police officer's protocol on the testimony of a regular string witness, the appraisal of the above string and the regular string of the above string are not sufficient to acknowledge credibility because the above string was made with the appraisal sample of the above victim's goods as well as the above string of the defendant's employee. The above regular string is the defendant's statement that the defendant was manufactured by the patent method under the above string of the victim's possession, and it is difficult to know the grounds to regard the above string, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above facts. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the value of evidence that the court below recognized that the defendant was manufactured by the patent method under the above string of the victim's possession.

3. Ultimately, the part of the judgment of the court below falling under Article 160 subparagraph 5 of the Patent Act among the judgment below is not maintained as it is because it contains errors in law application and incomplete deliberation such as violation of the rules of evidence, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is imposed as concurrent crimes with the crime corresponding to Article 158 (1) 1 of the Patent Act, one punishment is imposed as a single punishment. Thus, the whole judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)