특허 균등침해의 제1, 2 요건

With respect to “the equivalence of problem-solving principle,” the first requirement in the doctrine of equivalents, the Supreme Court of Korea has examined whether said principle is the same in view of an invention as a whole (Theory 1). On the other hand, there is a dissenting opinion that determination of the first requirement should be made element by element rather than in view of invention as a whole(Theory 2). Recently, in Supreme Court Order 2016Ma5698 Dated January 31, 2019 and Supreme Court Decision 2018Da267252 Decided January 31, 2019, the Court upheld its previous stance, i.e., declared the legal principle on determining the first requirement from the perspective of the entire invention whilst presenting a legal principle supplementing the downside of excessively broadening the scope of equivalents. The Court incorporates Theory 2 around Theory 1, which is indicative of the need to broaden the scope of equivalents through Theory 1 if the core element or technical idea is not publicly known and to narrow the scope through　Theory 2 if the same is publicly known or otherwise. Furthermore, the consideration of publicly known arts served as a link to its integration. Of note, the practical value of patent inventions can be found in that “a patent invention has contributed to technological development by solving the technological challenge that was not solved in the prior art.” Moreover, the scope of protection of a patent invention ought to be determined depending on its practical value, and the comprehension of such practical value can be objectified through specification and prior arts. In practice, the Supreme Court’s ruling as above, i.e., understanding the problem-solving principle functions as a requirement that explicitly considers the practical value of patent inventions, is to have significant implication going forward.