[1] In a case where there are changes in the composition of the patent claim of the patented invention in the invention subject to confirmation, the elements to regard the invention subject to confirmation as equal to the composition of the patent claim of the patented invention and within the scope of patent right of the patented invention, and the method to determine whether the invention subject to confirmation is identical with the invention subject

[2] In a case where the core of a technician on the basis of a special solution to a patented invention that is identified in consideration of the detailed description of the invention and the publicly known art at the time of the application is embodied in the infringing product, etc., whether the operating effect is substantially identical (affirmative in principle), and in a case where the core of a technician is already publicly known at the time of the application of the patented invention or is nothing more than that of the same, the method to determine

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3806 Decided June 25, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1239), Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu296 Decided May 27, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1296), Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu67 Decided July 28, 201 (Gong201Ha, 1853), Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu498 Decided May 29, 2014 (Gong2014Ha, 1351), Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu1132 Decided July 24, 2014 (Gong2014, 1753) Decided 2019Hu2814, May 2814, 2015 (Gong2017Hu20194, May 27, 2014)

Csco Co., Ltd. (formerly: East Esex Co., Ltd.) (Attorneys Park Sung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 decided May 1, 2001

Patent Court Decision 2015Heo2440 Decided November 19, 2015

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

A. (1) Even in a case where there are changes in the composition of the patented invention as described in the claim(s) in the invention subject to confirmation, if the patented invention and the task are identical to that of the patented invention, and practically the same effect as that of the patented invention, and if there is a person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains, any person can easily think, barring special circumstances, the invention subject to confirmation is still equivalent to the composition stated in the claim(s) of the patented invention and still falls under the scope

When determining whether the solution principle for the task of the invention subject to confirmation is identical with the invention subject to confirmation, part of the composition stated in the claim does not formally extract, but rather, 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 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 on the patented invention (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu132, Jul. 24, 2014).

(2) Whether the operating effect is substantially identical ought to be determined with the focus on whether the task that has not been resolved in the prior art is resolved by the infringement product, etc. Therefore, if the core on the professional engineer, who is based on the unique solution means for the patented invention identified in consideration of the detailed description of the invention and the publicly known art at the time of the filing of the application, is realized in the infringement product, etc., the operating effect is substantially the same. However, in cases where the core on the professional engineer is already publicly notified at the time of the filing of the patent application or is similar thereto, the determination of whether the core on the professional engineer of the patented invention is realized in the infringement product, etc., and whether the operating effect is substantially the same, should not be made by comparing the individual function or role of the elements at issue (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da267252, Jan. 31, 2019).

B. We examine the above legal principles and records.

(1) The patent invention of this case (patent registration number omitted) is an invention with the title “Spanish for Omission”. The elements 1 and 2 of the patent claim 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”) of the instant patent invention are the elements of “Spanish as indicated in the judgment of the court below,” which are “Spanish, formed by two sides of the body in the form of Spanish formed by the body of the body in the form of ethyl materials, shall not be combined into both parts in the direction of the length of Spanish (class 1) and the body of Spanish is formed by Nana to the lower part (class 2).”

The elements of the instant Claim 1 invention as indicated in the lower judgment are as follows: “The Hague is formed in the direction of length by narrowing the Hague toward the upper part at the lower part of the lower part, and the reinforcement is cut down to the outer upper part at the lower part of the Hague convenience.”

(2) 원심 판시 확인대상 발명도 위 구성요소 1, 2와 동일한 구성을 가지고 있다. 그러나 확인대상 발명은 위 구성요소 3에 대응되는 구성으로 ‘상기 받침부(스페이서 헤드)는 트러스거더를 안정적으로 지지하기 위하여 상부가 개방된 ∪형상으로 형성되어 서로 마주보는 한 쌍의 수직편과 상기 수직편의 하단을 연결하는 연결편으로 절곡되어 길이 방향으로 형성되어짐’(이하 ‘구성요소 3 대응구성’이라고 한다)으로 되어 있는 점에서 이 사건 제1항 발명과 차이가 난다.

(3) The specification (Evidence A) of the instant patent invention is indicated as follows.

(1) In the past, there was a problem in which the filled part might collapse with the virtue and the tent straw (007) laid out when the bottom of the scambling and the scamtic string installed in the scambath (ambath). (2) This invention aims at securing sufficient support or filled-up capacity by forming rocks on the body of Spain in the scamb below its concrete structure (008) (3) This invention is opened between the Spain and the steel board so that the scambathr can be separated from the upper part to prevent the collapse of the scambathy and the scambathr in the direction of 0 scambathy so that it can be separated from the upper part to the upper part to the upper part to the scambathy of the scambathr. (5) above scambathy so that it can be easily formed with the upper part to the upper part to the upper part to the end (01).

(4) The technologies publicly notified at the time of the application for the instant patent invention are as follows.

The Patent Gazette (No. 3) with the title "Spanish combined structure" is deemed to be a professional engineer who can prevent the collapse of virtue, etc. even in cases where the vertical load of the virtue, etc. installed in the Apanish company is increased by forming the Spain body lower part of the Spanish body and installing the metal materials in the upper part of the body body in Spanish and installing the Spain body and making the Spain be melted with the Spain body. However, there is no professional engineer support in the Spanish form in which the body is not easily known when combining the body in Spanish, two Spanish forms in which the body is connected with one body, and thus, the body in the lower part of the Spanish will be spanish at the same time, and the Spain body will not be able to be aground, and there is no professional engineer support.

The Design Gazette (No. 8) of the name “Trlerst Zone” shall be deemed to be the Design Gazette for registration. The drawing is presented in a form of land (Spanish body) so that each of the subordinates equipped with the lower parts of the Trlerst may be aground at the same time. However, the document No. 8 does not show that there is a professional engineer’s award supporting the vertical load of the art, such as the joints connected to the lower parts of the B, and there is no other data that can be seen as having been already known at the time of the filing of the patent application by the said professional engineer on the record.

(5) In light of the description of the specification and the technologies publicly notified at the time of the application for the instant patent invention, the key point in the professional engineer’s view, based on which the instant patent invention is a unique solution to the instant patent invention, is to “conform two Spanish bodies in the form that is not easily known when combining the body with the body of Spanish, connects the body of two Spanish bodies in two Spanishs, and ensure sufficient support or reclamation capacity for vertical load by enabling this Spain to be combined with each other at the lower end of the Spain equipped with the lower end.”

(6) The invention subject to confirmation also connects two bodies with the body body in a form that is not easily omitted when combining with the body body body (Spanish body) and enables the body body to combine with the present and lower parts equipped with the body body of the unit in the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of this case, thereby securing adequate support or landfill power for the vertical load of the unit of the unit of this case. Thus, since the core of the professional engineer is not different from the invention of Paragraph (1) of this case, the solution principle of Paragraph (1) of this case and the task of this case are the same.

(7) Even though there is a difference in the number of parts adjoining to the unit of the invention in question when combining the unit of response with the unit of the unit of the invention in question, it cannot be deemed that the challenged invention does not realize the core in the professional engineer of the instant Claim 1, and thus, the component of the instant Claim 3 and its effects are substantially identical to the unit of the instant Claim 1.

(8) Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the invention subject to confirmation did not practically have the same effect as the invention of this case, on the grounds of difference in the number of parts adjacent to the invention. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on determining the scope of protection of a patented invention, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in

2. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, 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 Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)