[1] Criteria for determining whether the invention in question falls under the scope of the patent right of the patented invention, and the meaning of "the solution principle of task must be identical in the two inventions" and the criteria for determining whether the invention in question falls under the scope of the patent right of the patented invention

[2] The case holding that the invention in question does not fall within the scope of the patent right of the patented invention on the ground that it does not fall within the scope of the patent right of the patented invention on the ground that the right to solve the problem cannot be seen as identical because it does not have the characteristic composition of the claim 1 of the patented invention, which is the "slick

[1] An invention compared to a patented invention (hereinafter referred to as "an invention subject to confirmation") must be included in the invention subject to confirmation in order to be within the scope of the right of the patented invention. Meanwhile, even in cases where there are parts of the patented invention subject to confirmation, the solution principle is identical in the two inventions, even if they are exchanged or modified in the composition of the patent claim of the patented invention, the same purpose can be achieved and the same effect can be achieved even if they are exchanged, and it is obvious to the extent that any person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary technician") can easily think of the invention, unless there are special circumstances such as where the challenged composition of the invention subject to confirmation is easily excluded from the scope of the patent claim through the patent application procedure, the invention subject to confirmation should be determined not by the specification of the patented invention, but by considering the unique characteristics of the invention subject to confirmation as a whole, within the scope of the patent claim.

[2] The case holding that paragraph (1) of the patent claim of a patented invention, the title of which is "slock opening device for cell phones mobile phones", does not include a separate 1,2, 33(3)(43)(43) from the aspect of "1, 2, and 40 (33)" as a means to prevent slock 1, 2, 30(30)(40) from spreading on both sides of the connection display (50) and adding a separate 1,2, 300(3)(43)(43) with a separate 1,2, and 54 of the patent invention to prevent slock (50) with a different 1,2,00 (33)(43)(50)(53)(54) with a thickness to prevent slock from being combined with the previous 34(5)(40)(53)(40)(43)(2)(43)(40)(2)(2)(43)(2)(43)(44)(2)(2)(2) of the two.4) of the patented invention.

[1] Articles 97 and 135 of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 97 and 135 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Hu2200 Decided July 28, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1954) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29194 Decided February 25, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3806 Decided June 25, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1239)

Pula Co., Ltd. and one other (Patent Attorney Cho Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Song Man-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2009Heo2920 Decided December 10, 2009

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. An invention compared to a patented invention (hereinafter referred to as the "invention subject to confirmation") must be included in the invention subject to confirmation in order to be deemed to fall under the scope of the right of the patented invention. On the other hand, even in the invention subject to confirmation, the solution principle for task is identical in both inventions, even if it is based on such values, the same purpose as the patented invention can be achieved, and the same effect can be achieved, and it is obvious to the extent that any person with ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary technician") can easily think about the invention. It should be determined within 200 after the determination of the scope of the patent invention as a whole, by taking into account the unique characteristics of the invention subject to confirmation, such as the description that the invention subject to confirmation could have easily been made by a person with the same technology or ordinary skill as the one already known at the time of application for the patented invention, or the description and specification of the invention subject to confirmation should be deemed to be within 200 years after the determination of the scope of the patent invention subject to confirmation.

2. We examine the above legal principles and records.

In comparison with prior art (No. 4) prior to the original adjudication of the claim 1 (patent registration number omitted) of the patented invention (patent registration number omitted) of this case with "slock slock slock slock slock slock slock slock slock slock slock 1, 2 link 30(30)(40)(43)(40) separate from the 1, 2 link lock slock slock slock slock 1, 2 lock slock 3(33)(43)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(3)(s)(s)(s)(s)(3)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(53)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(34)(s)(s)(s)(34)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(34)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(3)(s))(s)(s)(3)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s))(s)(s)))(s.3)(3)(s.

However, the composition of the challenged invention corresponding thereto is formed between the two sides of the revolving (40) and is combined with the revolving (60) of the revolving (40), and the revolving (40) is inserted into the open space of the shot support board (60), including the 1,2,3 Lib(71)(72(72)(73)(73)(60). Accordingly, the invention subject to confirmation does not have the characteristics of the invention subject to paragraph (1) of this case and does not have the characteristics of the revolving (40). Thus, the invention subject to confirmation does not have the characteristics of the invention subject to paragraph (1) of this case and does not have the characteristics of the revolving (71)(72)(73)(7)(7)(7)(7)(Gai(60)(Gai(51)(Gai)(51)(51)(51).

Thus, the two response structure cannot be seen as having an equal relationship without examining whether the two are able to exchange each other or whether it is easy to refund. Thus, the invention in question does not fall within the scope of the right to the invention in paragraph 1 of this case.

3. Nevertheless, the court below held that the invention in question is in an equal relationship with the invention in question, even if there is a difference between the two sides of the Central Rib (71)(72)(73)(s)(s)(1)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(71(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(71(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(7

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)