The case rejecting the assertion of patent infringement by equivalents in accordance with the legal doctrine of Faar

The case holding that, although the composition of the first unit part of the invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's first unit part can be deemed to be identical to that of the first unit part of the patent invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's right infringement is not permitted in accordance with the doctrine of speech, on the grounds that the creditor's claim that the invention's invention's right infringement is not allowed on the ground that the composition of the first unit part of the invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's invention's first unit part is identical to that of the first unit part of the patent invention's invention's invention's invention's invention

Articles 97, 126, and 135(1) of the Patent Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2001Hu171 delivered on September 6, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2452)

Seoul Raun-type system and one other (Law Firm Dao, Attorneys Park Jong-mun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The film-type system (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Yellow-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na19515 delivered on November 26, 2002

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the obligees.

1. The lower court determined to the following purport after compiling the adopted evidence and finding facts as stated in its reasoning.

A. The first unit part of the claim(s) of the patented invention(s) of this case(patent number omitted), which is a stude of female studs, consists of "the first unit part(s) of the claim(s) of the patented invention(s) of this case(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s))(s)(s)(s)(s)(s))(s)(s)(s))(s)(s))(s))(s)(s)(s)))))(s))(s)(s))(s))(s)(s)))(s))(s))(s))))(s)(s))(s)(s)(s)(s))(s))(s))).

B. However, the above difference is that the above paragraph 1 is identical to the above part of the claim 1 and the effects of the operation of the first unit of the claim 2 are the same, and all the parts transmitting power using mination labels to the non-party 1, which are commonly used in each technology field prior to the application of the patented invention, and mutual exchange of power transmission methods such as the invention mination labels to the non-party 1, is one of easy means for persons with ordinary knowledge in the technology field to which the invention belongs, and thus, both composition are equal. However, the composition of the first unit of the claim 1 invention at the time of the application and registration of the patented invention is limited to "one unit" which is composed of the non-party 2's non-party 1, which is composed of the non-party 1, which is composed of the non-party 1, which is the non-party 1, and the 981, which is composed of the non-party 1, the representative director of the debtor company, as evidence of the non-party 1, to be disclosed 1,

C. Inasmuch as a debtor's invention does not fall under the scope of the right to the claim 1 invention of this case, it does not fall under the scope of the right to claim 5 and claim 6 inventions of this case, which are subordinate claims to the claim 1 invention of this case and added thereto.

2. In order for an invention to be deemed within the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case, the organic combination relationship between each of the elements of the patented invention of this case and the elements of the patented invention of this case must be included in the obligor's working invention. In light of the records, since the composition of the first unit part of the invention of this case and the first unit part of the invention of this case cannot be deemed to be included in the obligor's working invention of this case, the composition of the first unit part of the invention of this case 1 cannot be deemed to be in the equivalent relation to the composition of the first unit part of the invention of this case 1, but the composition of the first unit part of the invention of this case 1 before the correction of the invention of this case 4, the composition of the first unit part of the invention of this case 1 and the first unit part of the invention of this case 2 of this case were not permitted after the correction of this case's 10th unit of the plaintiff's working invention of this case and the first unit part of the invention of this case 10th invention of this case's invention of this case.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)