207Hu494 Decision of Refusal (Special Provisions)

Co., Ltd. (formerly after merger):

Seoul THE

Representative Director

Patent Attorney Kim I

The Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office

The Composition of Litigation Performers

Patent Court Decision 2005Heo11094 decided Dec. 21, 2006

December 11, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

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

Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act defines the invention as "an advanced invention as a creation of technical ideas utilizing laws of nature." Thus, the patent application should be refused on the ground that the invention does not meet the requirements of "an invention which can be used for industry" under the main sentence of Article 29 (1) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of March 3, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply) unless it uses rules of nature. In particular, in order to constitute an invention of so-called business method (busi business method) realizing business method using information technology, data processing hardware using the software should be specifically realized on the computer (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu3149, May 16, 2003, etc.). Meanwhile, the issue of whether the invention was used for rules of nature does not constitute an invention under the Patent Act if it is judged that the claim does not have any rules of nature as a claim.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records in light of the above legal principles, the court below held that "the invention of this case (the number of the application: 10-2 - 2002 - 21391) in the form of an individual bank in the Internet community" is all included in the scope of a business method invention as amended on December 30, 2004, but the claim No. 3 and the above amended claim No. 1 are all included in the scope of a business method invention, but at the time of original adjudication, each stage does not contain specific means using a combination of software and hardware, and it does not clearly state how the annual production or processing of information by stages according to the purpose of use is realized on the computer, and therefore, it is just that the court below's determination that "the invention of this case can be used for the industry" under the main sentence of Article 29 (1) of the former Patent Act as a whole, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 29 (1) 1 of the former Patent Act.

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.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee

Justices Kim Young-ran

Justices Lee Hong-hoon

Justices Yang Chang-soo