균등론상 과제해결원리동일성 판단 시 공지기술의 참작 = The Doctrine of Equivalents: How to use prior arts under the `solution equivalent in value` test

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The first requirement of the Doctrine of Equivalents (hereinafter `DOE`) is that the solution of the accused embodiment must be regarded as a solution equivalent in value to the solution of the claimed invention (hereinafter `solution equivalent in value` test). Then, is it allowed to use prior arts not described in the specification when determining whether the deviating solution be regarded as equivalent in value to the claimed solution? If yes, how to use? This article considers these questions, based on the comparative study and case analysis. Both pros and cons exist on the first question. The pro argument is based on technical value judgement according to objective considerations. In contrast, the con argument is based on predictability and thus, prior arts should be considered under the fourth requirement of DOE (so-called practicing the prior art defense). Although the con argument is persuasive in view of predictability, the pro argument is more persuasive for the reasons as follow. Firstly, use of prior arts is more flexible in the first requirement than in the fourth requirement. Secondly, any concern on the predictability can be mitigated by reasonable use of prior arts under the `solution equivalent in value` test. Two things must be clarified by the Supreme Court of Korea. According to Supreme Court decisions, the equivalence between the deviating solution and the claimed solution should be determined in light of the specification and the prior arts. Does this mean that prior arts not described in the specification may be used in this analysis? Next, if yes, what is the reasonable way to use prior arts under the `solution equivalent in value` test? This article suggests as follows: Firstly, prior arts not described in the specification must be used to construe the value of the claimed solution so narrowly as to negate the first requirement. Next, the first requirement of DOE is met where the modified feature of the accused embodiment can be regarded as a realization of a more generic teaching that could be recognized by the skilled person in view of the specification and the prior arts. Therefore, prior arts not described in the specification must be used in order to define such generic teaching. They should not be used to change the problem or solution of a patented invention.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 中山信弘, "특허판례백선" 박영사 2014

2 김동준, "특허균등침해론" 법문사 2012

3 강경태, "균등침해판단에서 구성의 구분과 과제의 해결원리 -서울고등법원 2012. 4. 19. 선고 2011나45820 판결에 대한 판례평석-" 서울대학교 기술과법센터 9 (9): 2013

4 한동수, "균등침해의 요건 중 ‘양 발명에서 과제의 해결원리가 동일한것’의 의미와 판단방법" 법원도서관 (80) : 2009

5 한동수, "균등침해에서 과제해결원리의 동일성 요건" 대법원 특별소송실무연구회 11 : 2014

6 김동준, "균등침해 요건 중 과제해결원리 동일성판단방법" 한국지식재산학회 (44) : 39-95, 2014

7 김동준, "균등침해 요건 중 과제해결원리 동일성 판단 방법" 한국특허법학회 2016

8 정차호, "권리범위확인심판의 활용성 및 실효성 제고방안 연구" 특허청 2015

9 大渕哲也, "特許訴訟〈上巻〉(専門訴訟講座)" 民事法研究会 2012

10 高林龍, "特許法の要件事実論からの分析-権利取得原因と技術的範囲の属否を中心に-" 法曹会 59 (59): 2007

11 牧山皓一, "特許権侵害訴訟における均等論の適用−「特許発明の本#質的部分」の解釈についての一考察−" 日本弁理士会 65 (65): 2012

12 井上由里子, "特許判例百選" 有斐閣 2012

13 特許第2委員会　, "均等論についての検討-近年の下級審裁判例の分析-" 日本知的財産協会 64 (64): 2014

14 田村善之, "均等論における本質的部分の要件の意義" 有斐閣 2009

15 日本弁理士会中央知的財産研究所第11回公開フォーラム, "─明細書，特許請求範囲，そして保護範囲─" 日本弁理士会 (13) : 2014

16 大瀬戸豪志, "“等価理論(均等論)の将来─特許法における正義の観点から”, 均等論，覚醒か死か(日本工業所有権法学会編, 日本工業所有権法学会年報第38号)"

17 設樂隆一, "“無効の抗弁導入後のクレーム解釈と均等論，並びにボールスプライン─最判の第５要件とFESTO最判との比較及び出願時同効材等について”, 均等論，覚醒か死か(日本工業所有権法学会編, 日本工業所有権法学会年報第38号)"

18 高林龍, "“均等論をめぐる論点の整理と考察”, 均等論，覚醒か死か(日本工業所有権法学会編, 日本工業所有権法学会年報第38号)"

19 飯田圭, "“均等論に関する近年の裁判例の動向と課題について”, 均等論，覚醒か死か(日本工業所有権法学会編, 日本工業所有権法学会年報第38号)"

20 川田篤, "“ドイツにおける均等論の新たな動き”, 均等論，覚醒か死か(日本工業所有権法学会編, 日本工業所有権法学会年報第38号)"

21 Harguth, Alexander, "Patents in Germany and Europe: Procurement, Enforcement and Defense" Kluwer Law International 2011

22 Kühnen, Thomas, "Patent Litigation Proceedings in Germany" Heymanns 2013

23 Haedicke, Maxmilian, "Patent Law: A Handbook on European and German Patent Law" C.H.Beck Hart Nomos 2014