beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In order for a device to be confirmed in comparison with the registered utility model to be within the scope of the right of the registered utility model, the organic combination relationship between each element stated in the claims of the registered utility model and its components shall be included in the device subject to confirmation;
Meanwhile, even in cases where there are any changes in the composition described in the claims of a registered utility model within the scope of confirmation, if both devices are the same as the solution principle, even if such changes result in the same effect as that of the registered utility model, and if those who have ordinary knowledge in the art to which the device pertains (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary technician”), can easily think about such changes, the subject matter of confirmation shall be deemed to be equal to the composition stated in the claims of the registered utility model and still fall under the scope of the right of the registered utility model, unless there are special circumstances.
In addition, when determining whether the solution principle of a task is the same in a bilateral device, part of the composition stated in the claims should not be extracted formally, but in comparison with the prior art, considering the description of the device in the specification and the prior art at the time of the application, it should be practically examined and determined on what is the core of the professional engineer based on which the special solution method is based in the registered utility model in comparison with the prior art.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Hu393, Sept. 7, 2001; 2012Hu1132, Jul. 24, 2014). In addition, criminal facts are proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and its probative value based on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.
(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). 2. The court below reasons as stated in its judgment.