[1] The elements required to deny the novelty of selective invention [2] In order that the progressivity of selective invention could not be denied, the elements to recognize that the detailed description of selective invention states conspicuous differences in effect compared to the preceding invention

 [1] The meaning of "the identical invention" under Article 11 (1) of the former Patent Act [2] Whether it can be decided promptly that two inventions are not identical inventions in the application of Article 11 (1) of the former Patent Act, just because they have different scope of invention as one invention is "about a thing" and the other one is "about a method" (negative) [3] In case where a registered patented invention was publicly known or publicly implemented domestically prior to patent application, and thus, it is without novelty, whether its scope of right can be acknowledged (negative) [4] The case holding that paragraph (1) of the claim scope of patent invention of this case, i.e., "besylate salt of amlodipine" and paragraph (1) of the claim scope of the earlier-filed application, i.e., "the method of manufacturing besylate salt of amlodipine with special characteristic of recovering besylate salt of amlodipine after the reaction of amlodipine base with benzene sulphonic acid or its ammonium salt solution in inactive solvent" are identical inventions on the ground that they are about besylate salt of amlodipine produced by reaction of amlodipine base and benzene sulphonic acid

 [1]The meaning and scope of "production" under Article 127 subparagraph 1 of the Patent Act which provides about the indirect infringement and the elements for an article to constitute an "article to be used only for the production of the patented article" [2] The case holding that the act of producing, selling an article of the invention under dispute titled as "a grinding pad for CMP" constitutes an indirect infringement upon the patent right titled as "an improved grinding pad for CMP" as of the decision time point of the trial confirming the scope of patent right [3] The degree of specification about the invention under dispute, which is required to request a trial for the confirmation of scope of patent right

 [1] The interpretation method of determining the contents of invention finally, where the scope of patent request of the invention under patent application is stated with functional expressions such as function, effect, characteristic, etc. [2] The case holding that, as to the corrected scope of patent request No. 15 of the invention under patent application named as a "voice control method," its progressiveness is denied since an average engineer can invent it easily from the comparison inventions 1 and 2

 [1] In case where more than two claimants jointly seek an adjudication on the invalidation of a patent concerning the same patent right and thereafter win the adjudication, whether the application for adding a litigant is permitted where a patentee raises a litigation for revocation of such adjudication against only one claimant among co-claimants (negative) [2] The legal nature of such adjudication, in case where more than two claimants jointly seek an adjudication on the invalidation of a patent concerning the same patent right (=analogically indispensable co-adjudications), and where a patentee raises a litigation for revocation of the adjudication against only some claimants among co-claimants, whether among the adjudications only the portion relating to the remaining claimants against whom such litigation is not raised is separately affirmed merely because the statutory period for filing the litigation against them (negative)

 [1] The meaning of interested person who can file an administrative procedure invalidating a registration of service mark and the criterion time to determine whether a claimant qualifies as an interested person (=at the time of rendering a disposition) [2] The case holding that legal interests seeking revocation of disposition are recognized even though a valid unfavorable disposition from patent administrative procedure continues to exist and the intention not to use the registered service mark is expressed explicitly, repetitively [3] The case holding that the registered service mark "우리은행" constitutes "the registered service mark of this case constitutes a service mark which does not distinguish a business relation for consumers" under Article 6 (1) 7 of the Trademark Act [4] The meaning of "the trademark feared to be contrary to the public order or good customs" under Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act [5] The case holding that the registered service mark "우리은행" is an unregistrable service mark as "the trademark feared to be contrary to the public order or good customs" under Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Trademark Act

  [1] Whether stating a use of medicine only with a medicinal action containing a specified material meets the requirement of clearness of the claims pursuant to subparagraph 2 of Article 42 (4) of the Patent Act(affirmative with qualification) [2] The case holding that even though the patent claim 2 relating to the medicinal use invention described the use of effective ingredients, not with specific diseases or the effect of medicine, but only with its medicinal action, the patent claim 2 meets the requirement of clearness of the claim because we can clearly see a specific medicinal use, given the detailed prescription of the invention

 [1] The standard for determining whether a mark that is not originally distinctive acquires "distinctiveness through use," which is required to obtain a trademark registration under Article 6 (2) of the Trademark Act [2] Whether using a trademark long-term, which is recognized as identical, has an effect on the acquirement of "distinctiveness through use" under Article 6 (2) of the Trademark Act (affirmative) [3] The case holding that the trademark " " acquires distinctiveness through use in the case of using trademarks, such as "K2, , K2," which are recognized as identical to the trademark " " for a long time and thereafter, using the trademark " " continuously and with emphasis

 [1] The elements required for the acknowledgment of an invention progression made from collecting and combining prior art known to the general public and known and used art [2] The method for proving known and used art during litigation for the purpose of revoking a patent determination [3] Whether circumstances, such as commercial success for the product derived from the patent invention or the lack of the execution of such art for a long time prior to the application of a patent invention, may serve for the acknowledgement of an invention's progression (negative)

 [1] Whether it is permissible to determine denials of progressiveness of invention ex post facto on the basis that an ordinary technician knows the technology disclosed in the specification of the invention concerned (negative) [2] In determining the progressiveness of the "eavesdropping mode," being a major component of the patent invention called a "device and method to process emergency calls using mobile communications networks", it is not permissible to determine that the invention can be easily made from the composition of "reception of non-sound signals" of the invention in comparison since it amounts to an ex post facto determination as to progressiveness of the invention on the basis of the disclosed contents of the above-mentioned patent invention.