[1] In a case where the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit has changed the composition of the scope of a patent claim for a product manufactured or used by the other party to the patent infringement lawsuit, the elements to deem the product as infringing the patent right for the patented invention and the method to determine whether the pertinent principle of resolving the patent is identical

[2] In a case where the patentee A of the patented invention using the name “former automatic cutting and receiving device,” sought a injunction against patent infringement against the patent corporation Eul, the case holding that the patent infringement of the patented invention was committed on the grounds that the working product of the Eul company includes an organic combination between the same or equal components as the patented invention and its components

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3806 Decided June 25, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1239) Supreme Court Decision 2010Da65818 Decided September 29, 201 (Gong2011Ha, 2211)

Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Esiotoon Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Dao, Attorneys Park Jong-mun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na38362 decided January 16, 2013

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. 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 claim (hereinafter “infringed product”) infringes the patent right of the patented invention, an organic combination relationship between each element and its component stated in the scope of the patent claim of the patented invention must be included in the infringing product, etc. Meanwhile, even in cases where there are any changes in the composition stated in the scope of the patent claim of the patented invention, 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, any person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter “ordinary technician”) can easily consider, barring any special circumstance, the infringing product is still in equal to the composition stated in the scope of the patent claim of the patented invention and still infringes the patent right of the patented invention. In addition, if the “the solution principle of excess” is identical, part of the composition stated in the scope of the patent claim should not be formally extracted, but it should be determined on the basis of 2001.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following circumstances.

(1) The patented invention of this case (patent registration number omitted) is a patented invention under the name of "a automatic cutting and receiving device in whole whole," and the composition of the composition 1 through 6 and 8 of the patent claim No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the " Claim No. 1 invention of this case") as indicated in the judgment of the court below, namely, "compons, strings, strings, steel plates, pressure plates, pressure plates, dracks, and packing packing deliverys" are included in the Defendant's work products as indicated in the judgment of the court below.

(2) Of the instant Claim 1 inventions, the composition 7 of the lower court’s holding is “a shooting-type cut day fixed at the lower part of the Gadice and then the thickness is wider than that of the lower part.” This is one of the instant Claim 1 inventions, which is comprised of “a shooting-type absence” fixed at the lower part of the Gadice and the lower part, the thickness of which is wider than that of the two, and “a shooting-type day” fixed at the same location as that of such shooting-type absence.

However, the Defendant’s products are placed at the lower part of the case’s upper part, such as the composition of “shot-type absence” of the instant Claim No. 1, and are placed below, and the thickness of which is wider than that of the instant Claim No. 1, the structure of “shot-type gambling” is as it is. However, the instant Claim No. 1 invention is changed into the structure of “shot-type cutting day” formed vertically by linking the “shot-type blades” structure of the instant Claim No. 1 invention with the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part.

Therefore, unlike the instant Claim 1 invention, which is integrated with “shot-type absence” and arranged to be fixed to the lower part of the case, there is a difference in that the Defendant’s implementation product is placed separately on the upper part of the case so that the “shot-type cutting day” can be separated from the “shot-type stay” and moved to the upper part.

(3) In the past, the purport of the instant patent invention is as follows: “Although it was impossible to present a structure that sets the gap between the red layer Kim at a distance between the respective storage spaces of containers and containers, it may be automated to the process of receipt by inducing the pressure saving boards that enjoy the above red layer Kim to keep the gap depending on the external slope of the cutting day,” stipulated in the specification of the instant patent invention.

In full view of the description of these specifications and known art at the time of filing the application, the core of the professional engineer, which is based on the special solution means for the invention of Paragraph (1) of this case, is “inspiring each other to punish each other in the way of the external slopes attached to the lower part of the Gad case while leaving the Gadk Kim.” However, the Defendant’s implementation product also leads each other to punish each other depending on the external slope of the Gad case’s Gad case’s slope, which is attached to the lower part of the Gad case’s Gak case’s mouth, by the composition of the “sar-type gambling” with a slope face. Therefore, the Defendant’s implementation product does not differ from the invention of Paragraph (1) in the core of the professional engineer on which the solution means are based, regardless of the change in its composition.

(4) In addition, even with respect to the modification of the above composition, the Defendant’s products indicate the effect substantially identical to the instant Claim 1 invention in that “the process of receipt is automated by leaving their respective floors Kim to be accurately located on the packaging and containers.”

(5) Furthermore, it is merely a technical means that is commonly adopted in the field of technology to cut off the blades attached to the upper part, such as Defendant’s work products, while moving above the upper part, and thus, it can be said that anyone can easily think about the change of the composition.

(6) Although the structure becomes somewhat complicated to move from the Defendant’s product to upper end, and there is a difference in the specific cutting method in relation to the relationship with the “abdomination plate,” it appears that it is merely an incidental to the adoption of the official technical method irrelevant to the core of the professional engineer as seen earlier, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a difference in the substantial action effect on the ground of such difference.

3. Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s product infringes on the patent right of the instant Claim 1, since it contains an organic combination between the same or equal components as the instant Claim 1 invention and its components.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of the scope of protection of a patented invention, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, solely on the grounds that there is a structural difference in the composition of the cutting process and the receipt process in the Defendant’s work product, and that the production cost and the effect of the cutting differs from that of the instant work product.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)