Patent Court Decisions
Title | [Patent] Toilet Partition Plate Case (Patent Court Decision 2017Heo6736) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Date | 2019.09.26 | Hit | 312 |
Attached File | 7 2017Heo6736 Scope of Rights Confirmation (patent).pdf |
[Patent] Toilet Partition Plate Case (Patent Court Decision 2017Heo6736)
To argue that the Claim 1 invention at issue and the invention for review
have equivalent elements, substitution or modification of elements
corresponding to the Claim 1 invention at issue is required. However, as
reviewed above, as the invention for review does not have any element that
corresponds to Element 5 of the Claimed invention at issue, which is the PVC
edge, it is hard to see that the invention for review is in an equivalent
relationship with the Claim 1 invention at issue.
Furthermore, from the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it is hard to see
that the PVC edge is attached to the bottom surface of the waterproofing
component of the final toilet partitioning plate product for which the toilet
partitioning plate based on the invention for review is used as a part, and
there is no other evidence that supports such argument. Rather, the defendant’s
evidence demonstrates that the plaintiff's website has posted drawings or
photos of an installed toilet partitioning plate for bottom waterproofing, in
which the PVC edge is not attached to the bottom surface of the waterproofing
component. Therefore, it is hard to conclude that the item of the invention
for review is used for the manufacture of an item of the Claim 1 invention
at issue.
Even if the item of the invention for review is used for the manufacture of
an item of the Claim 1 invention at issue, given that ① the plaintiff is only
arguing based on his experience that the item of the invention for review
cannot be used as a partition in a waterless environment other than the toilet
and all partitioning plates for prefabricated toilets feature finishing materials
such as a PVC edge at the bottom, but has never submitted any objective
data to demonstrate his argument; ② rather, the toilet partitioning plate of
the invention for review is used for the construction of toilets and even the
plaintiff himself has introduced on his website a toilet partitioning plate for
bottom waterproofing, which appears to have no PVC edge attached to the
bottom surface of the waterproofing component, it is considerably reasonable
to understand that the toilet partitioning plate of the invention for review with
no PVC edge attached on the bottom surface of the waterproofing component
seems to have its own use, thus having other economic, commercial or
practical uses that are commonly used and socially acceptable and there is
no evidence to demonstrate that said item is used only for the manufacture
of the toilet partitioning plate of the Claim 1 invention at issue or simply
has theoretical, experimental or temporary usability for any item other than
said patented item. Therefore, it is hard to say that the item of the invention
for review is such that is used only for the manufacture of the item of the
Claim 1 invention at issue. Thus, as the manufacture of the item of the
invention for review cannot be deemed as an act of manufacturing an item
used only for the item of the Claim 1 invention at issue, said manufacture
is not an indirect infringement of the Claim 1 invention at issue.