|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IP Newsletter | Spring/Summer 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PATENT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Broadens the Doctrine of Equivalents to Emphasize Purpose over Specific Structures
|
|
|
|
|
|
A recent Supreme Court case (2017Hu479, rendered on December 22, 2017) clarified and substantially broadened the scope of the doctrine of equivalents as applied in patent infringement cases in Korea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The patent at issue (KR 10-892615) related to a device for lifting a "gang form," which is a type of external scaffolding used in construction to allow the building of tall walls in stages. A gang form is used to support a section of wall, and then once the wall is set, a crane is used to lift the gang form to allow the building of another section of wall on top of the previous section, by means of a lifting loop attached to the top of the gang form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The patent specifically related to a safety device used to lift the gang form. The invention involved a second safety loop slightly offset from the lifting loop, such that the safety loop could be lifted some distance before the lifting loop was also engaged. Lifting the safety loop would lift a cover covering bolts in the wall section that could be disengaged before the lifting loop was engaged by the crane hook and the entire gang form was lifted. Since the bolt cover kept the bolts from being accessible before the safety loop was engaged to lift the bolt cover, the invention prevented the risk of the gang form collapsing due to premature loosening of the bolts before the crane engaged the gang form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The defendant's non-infringement argument pointed to the lack of a "guiding element" in the accused product, which in the invention served to maintain a safety loop in position while being lifted but before the lifting loop was also lifted, as well as the specific type of spring used to lift the bolt cover. While the patent claim did not specify the structure of the guiding element, the specification disclosed as examples tube-like structures through which the safety loop was inserted. The accused product did not contain any tube-like structures corresponding to the example guiding elements in the patent, although there were other structural elements that served to maintain the position of the safety loop while being lifted. Further, the claim recited a compression spring for lifting the bolt cover, whereas the accused product used a torsional spring for this purpose. At the first and second instances, the lower courts determined that the patent was not literally infringed, and that the doctrine of equivalents did not apply because there was no element of the accused product directly substituted for the tube-like "guiding element" in the patent, and because different types of springs were used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Supreme Court reversed, citing to its earlier decision in a doctrine of equivalents case involving an invention for cutting roasted laver (Supreme Court Case No. 2012Hu1132 rendered on July 24, 2014). The Supreme Court determined that the Patent Court (the appellate court) had misinterpreted the scope of the claimed invention and misapplied the doctrine of equivalents in this case by narrowly focusing only on the differences in structure, without a full consideration of the essential purposes and problem-solving principles of the invention and the accused product. The Supreme Court held that "guide element" and "compression spring" were too narrowly limited to the specific structures exemplified in the specification, and that the accused product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents because there were other structures in the accused product that could serve the same function as the claimed elements, while any differences in structure were not unexpectedly unconventional and did not provide any different effects from the patented invention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Supreme Court noted that its earlier decision had been too narrowly interpreted by lower courts, and indicated its intention to clarify again the proper application of the doctrine of equivalents. The Supreme Court appears to have essentially broadened the doctrine to emphasize that structures in an accused product that are very different from claimed elements can still be "equivalent" as long as the differences are conventional and the basic purpose of the invention is still achieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to Main Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For more information, please visit our website: www.ip.kimchang.com
|
|
|
|