권리범위 확인심판에서 확인대상 발명의 특정 = Identification of the Subject Matter for Comparative Adjudication in Scope Confirmation Trials

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

When requesting a scope confirmation trial of a patent right, the subject matter for comparative adjudication must be specifically identified enough to allow comparison with the patented invention. Although the subject matter for comparative adjudication is merely a product or method actually practiced, the problem of inadequate or inappropriate identification often occurs by identifying it abstractly in a similar way to a patented invention.
A starting point for solving this problem is to first change the term for the subject matter for comparative adjudication from ‘invention’ to ‘product or method’. It is necessary to clarify that the subject matter of the scope confirmation trial is not the ‘invention’ but the ‘specific embodiment’ by changing the terminology.
Next, it is necessary to avoid applying the legal principle regarding the patent claims to identification of the subject matter for comparative adjudication. It is not appropriate to treat the comparison table in the description of the subject matter for comparative adjudication as if it were a patent claim and to consider the description to have priority over the drawings. In addition, it is not appropriate to describe the subject matter for comparative adjudication in a functional language and to identify it by invoking the legal principle of patent claim interpretation. The subject matter for comparative adjudication must be identified by considering the description and drawings as a whole. Even if the patent claim is described in a generic term or in a functional language, the subject matter for comparative adjudication must be identified in terms of a specific embodiment, not a generic term or a functional language.
According to Supreme Court precedent, if a non-infringement judgment is possible even when some elements of the subject matter for comparative adjudication are unclear, the subject matter for comparative adjudication is considered to be properly identified in respect of cause of action. Unless such precedents are changed, the legal principle that the subject matter for comparative adjudication must be identified in respect of object of action before being identified in respect of cause of action is necessary. However, since this is to ensure that all specific elements of the subject matter for comparative adjudication corresponding to the elements of the patented invention are described at the trial stage, there is no need to distinguish between how to identify the subject matter in respect of object of action and how to identify the subject matter in respect of cause of action.
The identification of the subject matter for comparative adjudication is affected by the interpretation of the patent claims. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a practice to ensure that a reasonable interpretation of the patent claims is made from the trial stage and that the subject matter for comparative adjudication is specifically identified based on this interpretation.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 염호준, "확인대상 발명의 특정" 특허법원 6 : 2013
• 2 전지원, "확인대상 발명의 특정" 법원도서관 (90) : 2012
• 3 박성수, "확인대상 발명의 설명서와 도면에 다소간의 불일치가 있는 경우에 어느 것이 우선 하는지" 법원도서관 (59) : 2006
• 4 이혜진, "특허법원 개원 20주년 기념논문집" 특허법원 2018
• 5 권오희, "특허법원 개원 10주년 기념논문집" 특허법원 2008
• 6 특허법원 지적재산소송실무연구회, "지적재산소송실무"
• 7 한규현, "지적재산권 소송제도 개요, 2020년 지식재산권 소송실무 법관연수 자료"
• 8 특허심판원, "심판편람" 2020
• 9 김동규, "심결취소소송의 절차에 관한 특허법 규정 등의 개선방안" 특허청 (4) : 2021
• 10 유영선, "기능적 표현으로 기재되어 있는 확인대상 발명의 특정 여부 판단 기준" 법원도서관 (94) : 2013
• 11 박영규 ; 이상정, "권리범위확인심판제도 운용의 문제점과 개선방안" 한국정보법학회 21 (21): 2017
• 12 정차호, "권리범위확인심판의 활용성 및 실효성 제고방안 연구" 특허청 2015
• 13 손천우, "권리범위확인심판에서의 확인대상 발명의 특정" 법원도서관 (124) : 2020
• 14 임병웅 ; 윤선희, "권리범위확인심판에서 확인대상 발명의 특정에 관한 소고" 한국지식재산연구원 14 (14): 2019
• 15 김종석, "권리범위확인심판 청구에서 확인대상 발명의 특정 정도" 법원도서관 (84) : 2010
• 16 竹田稔, "知的財産權訴訟要論(特許編)" 発明推進協会 2017
• 17 森崎英二, "特許訴訟の實務" 商事法務 2017
• 18 日本 特許庁審判部, "特許庁判定制度ガイドブック~権利の侵害・非侵害で お悩みの方に~"
• 19 牧野知彦, "牧野利秋先生傘寿記念論文集　知的財産権　法理と提言" 青林書院 2013
• 20 三村量一, "差止対象の特定,発明の本質的部分,意識的除外" 日本弁理士会 64 (64): 2011
• 21 日本 特許庁, "審判便覧"
• 22 UK IPO, "Opinions Manual"
• 23 UK IPO, "Litigation Manual"
• 24 Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA), "CIPA Guide to the Patents Acts" Sweet & Maxwell 2011
• 25 Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA), "CIPA Guide to the Patents Acts" Sweet & Maxwell 2022
• 26 Robert A. Matthews, Jr, "Annotated Patent Digest"