Korea Factor Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Kim Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

2. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term or “the term” means “the term or “the term” under the term

December 14, 2016

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 October 22, 2015 on the case No. 2015Da2804 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The process of the instant trial decision

1) On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant, a patentee, to confirm the scope of the right of the invention subject to confirmation with the purport that “the invention subject to confirmation does not fall under the scope of the right of the registered patent (patent registration number omitted)” (No. 2015No. 2804), and specified the description and drawings of the invention subject to confirmation as stated in [attached Form].

2) On October 22, 2015, the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal rendered the instant trial ruling dismissing the said request on the grounds that the invention subject to confirmation is equal to the claim 1 of the instant patent invention, and thus, falls under the scope of the right to claim 1 of the instant patent invention.

B. The patented invention of this case (A)

(a) Name of the invention: Automatic cutting and receiving device in whole whole;

(2) Date of application/registration date/registration number: November 10, 2003/ September 9, 2005/ (patent registration number omitted)

(c) A patentee: the defendant;

4) Claims

【The 1st unit of each of the above-mentioned structures for the fixed and support of each of the above-mentioned units (hereinafter referred to as “part 1”; the 5th unit of each of the above-mentioned units for the cutting strings (hereinafter referred to as “part 2”; the 5th unit of each of the above-mentioned units for the purpose of the cutting strings for the purpose of the operation of power in a direct direction; the strings for the purpose of the operation of the strings (hereinafter referred to as “part 3”); the strings for the purpose of the operation of the strings and the strings for the stable operation of the strings (hereinafter referred to as “the 4th unit of the strings”) connected to the strings that are fixed and operated with the strings; the strings for the purpose of the operation of the strings and the strings of the strings to the string of the strings.

【Request 2 to 6】 (Entry omitted)

5) Major drawings

A person shall be appointed.

(c) An invention subject to verification;

The invention subject to confirmation is related to automatic cutting and receiving devices in whole, and the statement and drawings of a specific invention subject to confirmation shall be as specified in attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the grounds for revoking the trial decision by the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the utility model registration (certificate No. 13: omitted) device (the utility model registration number omitted: hereinafter “Earlier device”) filed earlier than the instant patent invention, the “sway-based sway-based sway-based sway-based sway-based sway-based sway-based sway-based sway-based sway-based sway-based sway-based sway-based spon

B. As the instant Claim No. 1 invention does not have the same effect as the instant Claim No. 1’s “Arhiver and Stop”, the instant Claim No. 1’s “Arhiver and Stop” cannot be seen as having the same effect as the instant Claim No. 1’s “Arhiver.

C. Rather, in the invention subject to confirmation, the “replacement” is provided on behalf of the instant Claim No. 1 case, and such restoration sprink and sprink are based on different operating principles, and thus have different operating effects.

D. Therefore, the challenged invention is not in an equivalent relationship with the instant Claim 1, and thus does not fall under the scope of the right to the instant Claim 1 invention. The instant trial decision otherwise determined ought to be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. Whether the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of the right to the invention under paragraph (1) of this case.

A. Relevant legal principles

In order for an invention to be deemed to fall under the scope of a patent right of a patented invention, an organic combined relationship between the elements and components stated in the claims of the patented invention must be included in the invention subject to confirmation. In addition, even in cases where there are any changes in the composition of the claims of the patented invention in the invention subject to confirmation, the solution principle of task is identical in both inventions, and even if such changes are made, the same effective effect as that of the patented invention is indicated in the patented invention. If there is a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, unless there are special circumstances, the invention subject to confirmation is equivalent to the composition stated in the claims and still falls under the scope of a patent right of the patented invention. In this context, when determining whether the "the solution principle of task in both inventions" is "the same, the composition described in the claims shall not be formally extracted, but shall be determined by considering the description of the invention in the specification and the publicly known art at the time of the application, the core point in the patented invention, which is the basic method for solving the patented invention in comparison with the prior art at the time of application (see, 2014.

B. Preparation for the instant Claim 1 invention and the challenged invention

(i) the response relationship by component element;

본문내 포함된 표 구성요소 이 사건 제1항 발명 확인대상발명 1 장치 각부의 고정 및 지지를 위한 구조물을 이루는 프레임 장치 각부의 고정 및 지지를 위한 프레임(110) 2 상기 프레임의 상부에 고정되어 그 하부에 위치한 소정의 가동체를 연직방향으로 승강 작동 시키기 위한 구동력을 제공하기 위한 절단용 실린더를 포함하는 절단용 실린더유닛 프레임(110)의 상부에 고정되어 그 하부에 위치한 가동체를 연직방향으로 승강 작동 시키는 구동력을 제공하기 위한 절단용 실린더(121)를 포함하는 절단용 실린더유닛(120) 3 상기 절단용 실린더의 실린더 로드의 단부에 결합되어 수평을 유지하며 상기 실린더 로드와 함께 안정적으로 승강 작동되는 승강판 절단용 실린더(121)의 실린더 로드(122)의 단부에 결합되어 수평을 유지하며 실린더 로드(122)와 함께 승강 작동되는 승강판(130) 4 상기 승강판으로부터 그 하부로 적정간격을 두고 평행을 유지하며 동일 판상에 배치되고 각각 균일 크기로 분할 형성된 다수 개의 가압절판 승강판(130)으로부터 그 하부로 적정 간격을 두고 평행을 유지하며 동일 판상에 배치되고 각각 같은 크기로 분할 형성된 다수 개의 가압절판(140) 5 상기 승강판의 승강 시 이와 함께 상기 각 가압절판이 일정 이격거리를 유지하며 승강 작동될 수 있도록 상기 승강판과 각 가압절판을 상호 연결시켜줌과 아울러 그 승강 작동 과정에서 상기 각 가압절판의 간극이 가변적으로 이격될 수 있도록 작동되는 다수 개의 가압봉 승강판의 승강 시 이와 함께 각 가압절판(140)이 일정 이격거리를 유지하며 승강 작동될 수 있도록 승강판(130)과 각 가압절판(140)을 상호 연결시켜줌과 아울러 그 승강 작동 과정에서 각 가압절판(140)의 간극이 가변적으로 이격될 수 있도록 작동되는 다수 개의 가압봉 6 적층 구이김을 내부로 수용하기 위한 투입구가 일측에 형성되고 그 내측에는 투입 중인 구이김을 정확한 절단위치까지 이송하기 위한 인입작동유닛이 구비되어 상기 구이김을 내부로 자동 인입할 수 있게 함과 아울러 상기 가압절판의 승강 작동을 안정적으로 안내해주는 가이드케이스 ① 인입되는 구이김의 후미를 밀어서 절단위치까지 도달하게 하고 후미를 정렬하는 회동푸셔 ② 인입판(176)이 구이김(101)을 적재하여 절단위치로 들여오고 원위치로 후퇴할 때 구이김(101)의 선두가 절단위치에서 멈추도록 막는 봉상의 스토퍼(164) ③ 구이김을 적재하여 절단위치로 들여오기 위한 인입판(176)을 포함하는 인입작동유닛(170) 7 상기 가이드케이스의 하부에 고정 배치되고 아래로 갈수록 그 두께가 선형적으로 넓어지는 격자형의 절단날 절단용 실린더(121)의 상하 이동에 연동하고 각 가압절판(140)에 인접하여 수직으로 형성된 격자형의 절단날(180)과 가이드케이스(160)의 하부에 고정 배치되고 아래로 갈수록 그 두께가 선형적으로 넓어지는 경사면을 구비한 격자형 박스(185) 8 구이김의 절단개수와 대응되는 다수 개의 포장용기를 상기 절단날의 하부에서 동일 판상으로 인접 배치하여 상기 절단 구이김이 해당 포장용기 내에 각각 수납되기까지의 소정 시간동안 머무른 후 후속공정으로 이송되는 포장용기 이송유닛 구이김의 절단개수와 대응되는 다수 개의 포장용기를 격자형 박스(185)의 하부에서 동일 판상으로 인접 배치하여 절단 구이김이 해당 포장용기 내에 각각 수납되기까지의 소정 시간동안 머무른 후 후속공정으로 이송되는 포장용기 이송유닛(190)

(ii) common points and differences;

(A) components 1 to 5

The elements of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case are the same as those of the Claim No. 5 and each corresponding element of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case (this is without dispute between the parties).

B) Components 6

A person shall be appointed.

The elements of the instant Claim 1 invention 6 and the corresponding elements of the instant Claim 1 are substantially identical in that there are “inclusion” composed of a “inclusion” in which the whole-in part is put into force, and the “inclusion automatic oil unit” in which the whole-in part is transferred to the cutting location.

However, in the case of components 6, when taking into account the general meaning of the word “cases” as well as the descriptions below the specification of the patented invention of this case, the case of components 6 consists of a space where a person can accommodate a pressure-saving plate drawn in a vertical direction, and in the horizontal direction, the case of components 6 is interpreted to be composed of “the form of a box,” while the case is interpreted to be composed of “the form of a box,” which is the countermeasure element of the challenged invention, is formed only in two sides, and it is difficult to see this composition as a box.

On the other hand, as described above, Gads (60) cases are cityed from Do 1 to 3 above, include the following: (a) inputs (61) to accommodate the Gads (1) inside the upper floor are formed on a daily basis; (b) the inside side of the Gads (70) are equipped with the said sealed Gads (70) to transfer the Gads (1) to the accurate cut position, so that the above Gads (1) can automatically be automatically sealed; and (c) the above Gads (40) can provide a stable guidance for the operation of the Gads (40).

Therefore, the two response components are different in their shape structure.

C) Components 7

The components 7 of the challenged invention and the response elements of the challenged invention are fixed to the lower part of the case, and the thickness is wider than the following. However, the components 7 of the challenged invention are linked to the lower part of the case and are fixed to the lower part of the case because the shooting-type and shooting-type blades are composed of “one body” and are fixed to the lower part of the case. On the other hand, the challenged invention is different in that the shooting-type cutting day is connected to each pressure plate so that the shooting-type cutting day and the upper part can be “a separation and movement at the upper part”.

A person shall be appointed.

(iii) reorganization;

Ultimately, the invention in question cannot be deemed to include the same composition as that of the 6th unit case and its component 7, and it includes an equal composition. On the other hand, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the equivalent composition with the 7 unit element is included in the invention in question, but the issue of equality is a matter of legal judgment, and this part is also examined below.

(c) Whether it constitutes an equal relationship;

1) Whether the principle of resolving the task is identical

A) The purport of the instant patent invention’s specification is as follows, “I never present a structure that sets the gap between the red layer Kim at a distance between respective storage spaces of containers and containers, but the above red layer Kim may be automateded by inducing the above red layer Kim to keep the upper layer Kim from spreading, depending on the external slope of the cutting day.”

- Of the previous technology in the technical field to which the invention belongs, 3 5 m 5 m 7 m - However, in each of the above processes, the processing process for the receipt of the cut red-storys 8 m 1 m 20 m 20 m 20 m 20 m 20 m 20 m 20 m 20 m 20 m 20 m 20 m 20 m 20 m 8 m 8 m 200 m 20 m 20 m 8 m 8 m 10 m 200 m 20 m m 8 m m 8 m 20 m m 20 m m 8) m m m 20 m m 8 m m m m 8 m m m 204 m m 8 m m 220 m m m m.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 5, 8, 11, and 12, 6 of components of the invention of this case, is already known prior art at the time of the application for patent invention of this case. As seen in the following drawings, “Gain (30)” has already been launched from Gap evidence No. 11, and evidence No. 5, “Gad” [33: Gad (33) is located at a stable location of Kim (40) as stated in the knife (20) when the knife (31) knife (24c,24d) knife (20) knife (24c,24d) knife (31) knife) knife (24c,24d) knife (31) knife) begins.

A person shall be appointed.

In addition, it is clear that Gap evidence No. 8 is used as the same means as components 6-Ga cases. The extra wall No. 12 and Gap evidence No. 12.

In full view of the description of these specifications and known art at the time of the filing of the patent application, the key point of the technical engineer’s special resolution method of the instant Claim No. 1 invention is to adopt the element No. 7 and induce each other to fill the gap depending on the external slope of the string-type absence, which is fixed to the lower part of the Gadk Kim while leaving the lower part of the cut Gad Kim (i.e., the key point of the technical engineer’s special resolution method of the instant Claim No. 1 invention was determined by taking into account the fact that the Gadice case’s constituent elements 6 is an instruction method of guiding the knife, taking into account the fact that it is an open art as seen earlier at the time of the instant patent application).

B) However, in the invention subject to confirmation, the term “scam-type gambling” by the composition of “scam-type gambling,” which has sloped pages, refers to inducing each other to take a scam between themselves depending on the external slope of a shooting-type gambling room, which is set up at the lower part of the cutting location of Kim. Therefore, in the invention subject to confirmation, even though the components 7 were changed to corresponding elements, the core of the professional engineer based on the solution means is different from the invention of this case, and thus, the solution principle of the instant Claim 1 invention and the task are the same.

C) According to the claims in the instant Claim Claim No. 1, the case of the constituent element 6 is combined with the constituent element 7 (i.e., the case is in line with the upper part of the cutting day of the studio type) and plays a role in the stable guidance for the operation of the string of the string of the stringm. Considering the detailed description and [Do 1 through 3] of the instant patent invention, the nding case has the form of “foreign box,” such as the “instring” used in the past as seen earlier, and the nding line of the string of the stringm of the stringm of the stringm is assigned to the outside side of the stringm, and serves as a guidance for the route of the string of the stringm of the stringm to the upper part of the st

In the invention subject to confirmation, the “stofers installed in the Mauritius and its corresponding parts,” are placed on the outer side of the pressure saving plate, and provides guidance on the operation of the pressure saving plate. Therefore, even though the Gatos of the constituent elements 6 were changed from the invention subject to confirmation to the corresponding constituent elements, the core of the professional engineer based on the solution means is different from the invention of the instant Claim 1, and therefore, the solution principle of the instant Claim 1 invention and the task are the same.

D) In relation to this, the Plaintiff asserts that, using the “shot-type absence” in the earlier application device (Evidence A No. 13) filed earlier than the instant patent invention, the Plaintiff had already been initiated in a professional technician’s position “inciting cut Kim and leading another person to take a shot-type shot, depending on the external side of the shot-type absence fixed to the lower part,” and that such shot-type absence should be excluded in determining the same as the instant patent invention’s subject-matter of paragraph (1) invention.

However, for the following reasons, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

(1) For the purpose of understanding the principle of solving the task of a patented invention, the term “the consideration of public technology” shall be understood to the extent that the core in the professional engineer of the patented invention is grasped in accordance with the specification, but it shall be understood to the extent that the prior art is complementaryly considered in the process. In the case of the prior art, it shall not be understood to understand the solution principle of the task

② Furthermore, in order to prevent the so-called duplicate patent, “Earlier invention” is merely a status granted by lectures to exclude the registration of a later patent application, with respect to an invention for which a patent application has been filed, and cannot be deemed as an publicly known technology that could have been known by anyone before the patent application. The foregoing earlier application invention is also registered on November 26, 2003 and publicly notified on December 3, 2003, which is after the patent application of this case, and is not an known technology at the time of the patent application of this case.

③ Rather, there is no evidence to prove that, at the time of filing an application for the instant patent invention, Kim cutting devices (Evidence A 4 through 12) already known, there was no shot-type absence, and there was no other evidence to prove that there was an announcement of the composition of receiving the whole by using the shot-type absence other than the earlier application device.

2) Whether the possibility of transshipment exists

A) The pressure and vibration of the instant Claim No. 1 is likely to occur on the pressure saving plate of the instant Claim No. 1 by repeated landing actions at the actual work site. Nevertheless, for the following reasons, it is determined that the pressure saving plate may be able to take off by means of stable guidance by Macius and stoferer, which is the countermeasure element of the instant Claim No. 1, for the following reasons. Therefore, the effects of Macius and stofer are sufficient to view the effects of the instant Claim No. 1 in the challenged invention as the effects to the extent that the core of the technical engineer in the instant Claim No. 1 can be realized.

① According to the evidence Nos. 20 and 8, the field inspection of the relevant case (Patent Court No. 2014Hu5633, Patent Court No. 2014) reveals that, even if the Defendant’s actual implementation product removes three of the Gads and continuously Gads, the Gads continue to take part in the Gads. Ultimately, if the Defendant’s implementation product removes three of the Gads and the Gads can take part in the Gads, if the Gads can take part in the Gads, the Gads will still be able to take part in the Gads, which can be seen as removing two of the Gads.

② Even in a situation where the device is operated at the actual work site, it appears that 6 pages, such as in the right-hand map, can be informed of the eight pressure control plates, which are separated from one another, to contact wheelers and stores from one another, and that wheelers and stores from one another also play the same role as d to a certain extent).

B) In relation to this, the Plaintiff asserts that in the invention subject to confirmation, the Plaintiff has "reparing" instead of "reparing" cases of the instant Claim 1 in lieu of the instant Claim 1 invention, and that the operation of the "reparing" did not normally take place without "reparing."

As seen earlier, the invention subject to confirmation includes 8 virtual voltages (150) placed at the outer range except the voltages placed at the central center (152) of the invention subject to confirmation. However, it is difficult to see that restoration monitoring is in place on the upper part of the pressure plate and is in contact with the pressure plate. Rather, it is difficult to see that the restoration monitoring is in line with the pressure saving system, such as the dint of constituent elements 6. Rather, the restoration monitoring (152) is in line with the performance of the pressure saving line. Rather, it is difficult to see that the link can be seen as a smooth extension of the external pressure (i.e., the external pressure) by means of the restoration force to ensure the smooth extension of the external pressure, and then the extension of the external pressure (i.e., the external pressure) can be seen as a smooth extension of the external pressure.

Furthermore, according to the evidence evidence No. 26, the fact that the pressure saving plate was normally taking on the part of the Plaintiff’s actual product without a restoration chain formation from the date of the second examination of the pertinent case (Seoul High Court 2016Kahap23).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

C) Ultimately, the invention in question indicates the same effect as the invention of this case, in that even if it changes the unit 6 Ga cases with the revolving fracks and the storess, it provides a stable guidance on the operation of a pressure saving plate, it can be deemed that the invention in question indicates the same effect as the invention of this case.

3) Whether the patient is well-known

A) The act of cutting off objects fixed on the lower part while moving the blades assigned to the upper part as in the challenged invention is nothing more than a technical instrument that is commonly adopted in the technical field of the instant patent invention. Therefore, the act of changing the components 7 to a structure that separates the upper part adjacent to each pressure level so that the blades can be separated from the corresponding components 7 and moved to the upper part, such as the corresponding components of the instant patent invention.

B) In addition, the term “spugr and sprinker” of the invention in question is simply removed from two pages of box type Gaints, and it is obvious that ordinary technicians can easily think of them. In particular, it is more so in light of the fact that, even if three pages of Gakes are removed from actual products, it is possible to take off a pressure-saving machine to a certain extent.

(iv) reorganization;

Thus, even if there are changes in the composition of the Claim No. 1 invention in the challenged invention, the two inventions are identical to the resolution principle for resolving the two inventions, even if such changes are made, the patented invention has the same effect as that of the patented invention, and such changes can easily be considered by ordinary technicians. Thus, the challenged invention is in an equivalent relationship with Claim No. 1 invention of this case.

(d) Whether it falls under the use relationship;

1) Relevant legal principles

If the invention in question is related to the use of the patented invention, it is within the scope of the right of the patented invention. Such use relationship is established when the invention in question adds a new technical element to the composition of the patented invention, and the invention in question maintains the unity of the patented invention as an invention in the challenged invention while using it as it is, in whole, includes the outline of the patented invention. The same applies to the case where the patented invention in question uses not only the same invention as the patented invention, but also the same invention in question (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu393, Sept. 7,

2) Specific determination

As seen earlier, in the invention subject to confirmation, the restoration license composition is merely a new technical element added to the technical composition of the Claim 1 invention of this case, and it can be deemed that the invention subject to confirmation is "use" including the entire outline of Claim 1 invention of this case. Moreover, the effect that the invention subject to confirmation can be seen as being realized in the invention subject to confirmation so that the invention can be "inducing each floor of cut top Kim, who is at the lower part of the case, to make "inducing each floor of cut top Kim, who is at the lower part of the case, to keep mutual ties depending on the external slope of the outer slope of the cut-type absence, which is set up."

Thus, the invention in question is identical or equivalent to the invention in paragraph (1) of this case as well as the organic combination relationship between the elements of the invention and its use. Thus, the invention in question is in a utilization relationship with the invention in paragraph (1) of this case.

E. Book of the scope of rights

The invention subject to confirmation is identical or equivalent to the invention of Paragraph (1) of this case and its use by including the organic combination relationship between the same or equal components as the invention of this case and its components. Thus, it falls under the scope of the right to the invention of Claim 1

4. Conclusion

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

[Attachment]

Judge O Young-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Dong-dong Kim Dong-dong

1) According to Gap evidence No. 20, it can be confirmed that the Defendant’s actual implementation of the product is a screen, etc., generated in contact with the pressure saving plate. However, the degree of such tracess and vibrations may vary depending on the shape of the product, the duration of the duration, and the external strength of the product.

Note 2) In the process of entering a seal plate at the actual work site and the process of closeing the revolving routers, etc. These external strengths may take place in the device. These external strengths operate in such a way that the pressure plate can be informed by the routers and the routers to contact with the pressure plate.

3) In the case of the Plaintiff’s implementation product (the invention in question is the same as the invention in question), it can be seen that there is a flicking flacker’s flacker’s flacker’s flacker’s flacker’s flacker’s flacker’s flacker’s flacker’s flacker’s flacker’s flacker’s