[1] Where the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit has changed the composition of the scope of a patent application for a product manufactured or used by the other party to the patent infringement lawsuit, the elements to deem that the product, etc. infringes the patent right of the patented invention and the method to determine whether the "the principle of resolution" is identical

[2] In a case where the core of the professional engineer based on the detailed description of the invention and the method of solving the invention, which is identified in consideration of the publicly known technology at the time of the application, is embodied in the product or the method of using the other party to the patent infringement lawsuit, whether the operating effect is substantially identical (affirmative in principle), and in a case where the core of the professional engineer is already publicly known at the time of the application of the patent invention, or is merely no different, the method to determine whether the operating

[1] In order for the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit to infringe on a patent right of a patented invention, an organic combined relationship between each element and its component stated in the patent claim of the patented invention must be included in the infringed product, etc. In order for the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit to infringe on the patent right of the patented invention. Even in cases where there are any changes in the composition stated in the patent claim of the patented invention in the infringed product, the solution principle between the patented invention and the task is identical, the patented invention actually has the same effect as that of the patented invention, and the modification is deemed to have the same effect in the patented invention, and if there is a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, to the extent that anyone can easily think, barring special circumstances, the infringed

In this context, when determining whether the solution principle for the task of an infringed product and a patented invention is identical, part of the composition stated in the claim does not formally be extracted, but in comparison with the prior art in consideration of the detailed description of the invention stated 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 who is based on the special solution method in the patented invention.

[2] Whether the operating effect is substantially identical should be determined by focusing on how the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit manufactures or uses a product (hereinafter “infringed product, etc.”) with a task that has not been resolved in the prior art. Therefore, in principle, if the core of a technician who is based on a unique solution to a patented invention identified in consideration of the description of the invention and the publicly known art at the time of the filing of the application is embodied in the infringing product, etc., the operating effect should be deemed substantially identical. However, if the core of a technician as above is either publicly known or similar at the time of the filing of the patent application for the patented invention, it cannot be deemed that such core of a technician is unique to the patented invention, and it cannot be said that the technical task that had not been resolved in the prior art is resolved. In such a case, whether the core in the technical engineer of the patented invention is realized in the infringing product, etc., and whether the operating effect is substantially identical, and whether the patented invention is reasonable should be determined by comparing the function or role of the elements at issue.

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu1132 Decided July 24, 2014 (Gong2014Ha, 1753) Supreme Court Decision 2013Da14361 Decided July 24, 2014

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

Defendant (Attorney Kim Sang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2017Na2684 decided August 16, 2018

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. (1) In order for the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit to infringe on a patent right of a patented invention, an organic combination between each element and its component stated in the claim(s) of the patented invention should be included in the infringing product. Even in cases where there are any changes in the composition stated in the claim(s) of the patented invention, etc., the solution principle between the patented invention and the task is identical, the patented invention actually has the same effect as that of the patented invention, and the modification can easily be made if there is a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains, barring any special circumstance, the infringing product, etc. is equal to the composition stated in the claim(s) of the patented invention’s patented invention and still infringes on the patent right of the patented invention.

In this context, when determining whether the solution principle for the task of an infringed product and a patented invention is identical, part of the composition stated in the claim does not formally extract, but rather, in comparison with the prior art in light of the detailed description of the invention stated in the specification and the prior art at the time of 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Hu1132, Jul. 24, 2014; 2013Da14361, Jul. 24, 2014).

(2) Whether the operating effect is substantially identical should be determined with the focus on whether the task resolved by the patented invention is resolved by the prior art. Therefore, in principle, if the core on the patented invention, which is based on the detailed description of the invention and the publicly known technology at the time of the application, is realized by the infringed product, etc., which is based on the unique solution means for the patented invention, taking into account the publicly known technology at the time of the application, the operating effect is substantially the same. However, if the core in the above professional engineer is either publicly known or similar at the time of the application of the patented invention, such core in the professional engineer cannot be deemed as being unique to the patented invention, and it cannot be said that the patented invention resolved the technical task that was not resolved by the prior art. In such a case, whether the core in the technical engineer in the patented invention is realized by the infringed product, etc., and whether the patented invention is equivalent should not be determined by comparing the individual functions or roles of the elements at issue.

2. We examine the above legal principles and records.

(1) The instant patent invention (patent registration number omitted) is an invention of the title, “direct abrupting system for sugar purposes”.

(2) As indicated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant's product is included in all the composition of the patent claim 1 (hereinafter referred to as "claim 1 invention of this case") of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter referred to as "claim 1 invention of this case") excluding the heater of Bohion electric power (the original judgment No. 5-5) in the Badern.

(3) The Defendant’s products have a “gas heating device” at the outside of the singing, instead of the above “heropic electrical heating device”.

(4) With respect to paragraph (1) invention of this case, the detailed description of the invention of this case states, “The direct provisional-tension composition process of the present invention provides that “The direct provisional-tension cutting process of the present invention shall not only be more effective than the previous indirect method, which simply focuses on the high pressure temperature by directly pressure, preliminary and high voltageing over the entire surface of the sugar that is injected into the lower-class gold with the upper sprinking of the upper gold, and by retensioning it into high pressure by the lower-class gold.” In addition, the detailed description of the invention of this case states, “In addition, it is superior to the previous indirect method, which simply depends on the high pressure of the upper-class gold temperature, which is applied to the national secondary changes due to the response and the high pressure that is installed on the lower-class and operated by the lower-class.”

(5) However, a technician who is identified in the detailed description of the invention as above, stated in the evidence No. 7, that the phrase “affortly enhances the unity effect by pressure from both sides of the upper and lower sides,” appears in the evidence No. 7, which was known at the time of the application for the instant

(6) A professional engineer’s award that “an improvement of a short-term effect by pressure from both sides of the upper and lower sides” cannot be deemed as unique to a patented invention, and it cannot be said that the technical task that had not been resolved in the prior art was resolved. As such, whether the effect of the instant Claim 1 is substantially identical shall not be determined on the basis of whether the pertinent professional engineer was realized. Determination of whether the effect is substantially identical should be made by comparing the individual functions, roles, etc. of “herat electrical heating equipment” and “gas heating equipment” of the instant Claim 1 with the Defendant’s product. The aforementioned two composition differs from the function of regulating the gold temperature, and thus, such substantial effect cannot be deemed identical.

(7) Therefore, the Defendant’s product does not contain any equivalent element with the “heat electrical heating device” of the instant Claim 1, and thus cannot be deemed as infringing the instant Claim 1’s invention. Although the lower court’s reasoning is inappropriate, the lower court did not err in its conclusion that the Defendant’s product did not infringe the instant Claim 1’s invention, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on equal infringement of the patented invention, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)