IP High Court Decision, 2020Heo7722 (Case Concerning Self-foaming Cosmetic Composition)

This case concerns whether the patented invention is adequately substantiated by the description of the invention, and whether its inventiveness is denied. The patented invention establishes numerical ranges for each composition. However, this invention cannot be viewed as a numerical limitation invention because the organic combination of each component possesses its own technical significance. Composition 3 delineates the decyl glucoside content to ‘0.1 to 3 percent by weight’ relative to the entire composition. The patent’s specification describes the content of non-ionic surfactants, such as decyl glucoside. Tables 1 and 4 of the specification present scenarios where decyl glucoside falls within the scope of claims mentioned above [0.5 percent by weight of decyl glucoside (Embodiment 1), 0.6 percent by weight of decyl glucoside (Embodiment 3), 0.8 percent by weight of decyl glucoside (Embodiments 2 and 4), and 0.9 percent by weight of decyl glucoside (Embodiments 5, 6, and 7)], which supports the delineated numerical ranges (0.1 to 3 percent by weight) within the description of the invention. Furthermore, the patented invention primarily functions as a moisturizers, and the prior art 1 functioning as a cleanser is not readily combined with the prior arts 2 and 3 which functions as a moisturizer. So, the inventiveness of the patented invention at issue shall not be denied.