Criteria for determining the identity of the device

Unless there are special circumstances, such as where the technical composition of the two devices filed before and after, and even in cases where in whole the same part as well as in part, the other parts except the corresponding parts are dealt with a separate device, or where the device of the same part is closely connected with a new device and a new device is a new device, even if there are differences in the composition of the two devices, the two devices are not merely a change to the extent ordinarily employed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field, and they do not cause a different difference in the purpose and effect of the device, and they are the same device (the devices of this case are related to the revolvings and slopes for the control of slope angles used by monitors, etc.).

Article 7 (1) of the former Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209 of January 13, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Geumsung Co., Ltd.

Samsung Transfer Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korean Intellectual Property Office Decision 198 No. 88 dated May 31, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 7(1) of the Utility Model Act (amended by Act No. 4209) provides that only the best utility model registration may be granted for the same device(s). The court below held that two different devices are the same as a separate device(s) or, even if there are differences in the technical composition and in part, the remaining parts of the device are combined with the new device(s) at least 14 different from the new device(s) at the 1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-6-1-7-1-6-1-7-14-7-14-27-14-27-14-27-14-27-17-17-14-27-14-197.

According to the records, in preparation for the main bill and the seafarer's complaint, the two are deemed to have the same technical composition as the time of the original adjudication as a device related to the revolving the revolving and the sloping angle used for monitors, etc., but there are differences in the method of conclusion. However, this is merely a change to the extent ordinarily employed by a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field, and there is no significant difference in the purpose and effect of the device. Thus, the main bill is the same as the seafarer's complaint, and the main bill is deemed to be null and void because it is the same as the seafarer's complaint, and even if the original decision is somewhat insufficient at the time of its explanation of its reason, it is just to determine the same purport as the two devices are deemed to have the same in substance, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the identity of the device in the seafarerism, such as the theory. The argument is without merit.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)