The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent 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 an invention to be confirmed, compared to a patented invention, to be within the scope of the right of the patented invention, an organic combination relationship between each element stated in the claims of the patented invention and that element must be included in the invention subject to confirmation.

On the other hand, even in cases where there are changes in the composition described in the claims of the patented invention in the invention subject to confirmation, if both inventions are identical with the solution principle, even if such changes result in the same effect as the patented invention, and if it is possible for anyone to easily think of the changes in the art to which the invention pertains, the invention subject to confirmation is equivalent to the composition described in the claims of the patented invention, and still falls under the scope of the rights of the patented invention, barring special circumstances.

In addition, when determining whether the solution principle of the task is the same in both inventions, part of the composition stated in the claims should not be extracted formally, but in comparison with the prior art by taking into account the description of the invention in the specification and the prior art at the time of application, the description of the invention and the prior art at the time of application should be practically examined and determined on what is the core of the professional engineer on which the special solution method is based.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu1132, Jul. 24, 2014). 2. We examine in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the lower court.

A. Composition 1, 3, and 3 of the lower judgment of Paragraph 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”) of the Patent invention (Patent Registration Number No. 892615) of this case, the title of which is the “pit pumps safety lifting system”, constituted 1, 3, and 3.