All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu296 Decided May 27, 2010 [Confirmation of the Scope of Patent Right (Patent)] [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| [1] Criteria to determine whether the invention in question falls under the scope of the patent right of a patented invention [2] The meaning of ""both inventions must share identical solution principles to a problem"" as a requirement for an invention in question to be seen as falling under the scope of the patent right of a patented invention, and how to determine thereof [3] The ""wing manufacturing phase (S600)"" of the invention in question cannot be seen as equivalent to the claim 1 invention in the scope of the patent claim for the patented invention titled ""Orthodontic Bracket Manufacturing Method,"" and does not fall under the scope of the patent right of the claim 1 invention for this case, nor claim 2 and claim 3 inventions for this case, which are dependant claims to claim 1 [4] The degree of specification required for an invention in question to confirm the scope of the patent right of a patented invention [5] Whether if, in circumstances where the manual for the invention in question does not include some specific elements or contains unclear portions corresponding to that of the patented invention, the invention in question should still be seen as being specified as long as it remains possible to determine if it falls under the scope of patent right for the patented invention (affirmative) [6] The invention in question is specified to a level sufficient for comparison with the inventions in claims 4 to 9 of the scope of the patent right of the patented invention | |
