과제해결원리의 동일 여부의 판단 방법

Supreme Court Decision 2017Hu424 decided January 31, 2019 considers not only the known art described in the specification of a patent invention, but also the publicly known art other than the specification (the prior art), and substantially explores what is the core of the technological idea on which the solution specific to the patent invention is based in contrast to the prior art. Therefore, it grasps the problem-solving principle of the patent invention broadly or narrowly according to the degree to which the patent invention contributed to technological development, and then determines whether the problem-solving principle of the object allegedly infringing the patent invention is the same as that of the patent invention. In my opinion, it is reasonable to understand objectively by exploring the core of the technological idea on which the solution unique to the patent invention is based, compared to the known art shown in the specification of the patent invention. It is unnecessary to figure out the problem-solving principle by taking into account the prior art other than the specification. If you take into account it, there may be a risk of developing problems such as change, enlargement, reduction, or distortion of the problem-solving principle. Whether the problem-solving principle is unique compared to the prior art can be evaluated, but this does not mean that the problem-solving principle itself is broadly or narrowly identified depending on whether it is unique. Even if the prior art other than the specification is considered, it should be taken into account not in determining the width of the problem-solving principle itself, but in determining the sameness of the problem-solving principle. Even in a case where you follow the position to take into account the prior art other than the specification as the aforementioned Supreme Court Decision suggested, it is desirable to judge whether the problem-solving principle is the same as follows. ① The core of the technical idea of ​​the patent invention has to be understood based on the specification of the patent invention. ② The prior art other than the specification is considered in determining whether the problem-solving principle is the same. The width of sameness of the problem-solving principle is determined based on the extent to which the patent invention contributed to technological development, taking into account the prior art other than the specification. ③ The core of the technological idea of ​the patent invention is compared with that of the technological idea of the object allegedly infringing the patent invention. If there is no difference from the patent invention in the core of technological idea despite the changes in the composition of the object, it will be judged that the problem-solving principles of the two are the same, while if there is a difference, it will be determined that the problem-solving principles are different.