Supreme Court: "Inventive Step... Should Not Be Denied Due to Prior Art"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Supreme Court has ruled that when determining the inventive step of a patent, it is necessary to consider whether a person skilled in the art could have easily invented it based on prior art at the time of the patent application. The ruling implies that the inventive step of a subsequently filed patent should not be denied simply because a similar technology was invented earlier and registered as a patent.

On the 24th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yusuk) overturned the lower court's ruling that favored Company B in the appeal trial of a patent invalidation lawsuit filed by Mr. A, the holder of the 'Ceramic Welding Support' patent, against Company B, and remanded the case to the Patent Court.

In 2014, Mr. A invented a technology to produce welding supports using ceramic materials capable of withstanding high temperatures and filed a patent application. However, Company B claimed that Mr. A's patent was based on technology they had invented earlier and requested a patent invalidation trial, which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board accepted.

Dissatisfied with this, Mr. A took the case to the Patent Court, but the court recognized Company B's claims. The court noted that both technologies share common features such as reducing absorption rates to maintain mechanical strength and prevent defects, interpreting that Mr. A's invention could be easily derived from Company B's technology.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. It found that Company B's patent relates to welding supports and differs from Mr. A's patent invention in terms of refractoriness scope, and that there is no description regarding plastic density or absorption rate.

The court stated, "When determining the inventive step, it is necessary to examine whether a person skilled in the art could have easily invented the invention based on prior art at the time of the patent application," and added, "From the perspective of a person skilled in the art, unless it is judged retrospectively on the assumption that Mr. A's patent invention was already known, it is difficult to see that Mr. A's patent invention could be easily derived from the prior invention."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.