균등론상 과제해결원리동일성 판단 시 공지기술의 참작

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.