“Dapagliflozin Formate”

• 1. Even when the components listed in the claims and the corresponding components of the allegedly infringing product are not the same in the literal sense, if they are evaluated to be in an equivalent relationship, they are considered to fall within the scope of protection, and infringement is thus acknowledged.

• 2. Considering the purpose of recognising equivalent infringement, it is reasonable to conclude that materials published between the filling of the patent application and the infringement can be taken into account when determining the convenience of composition change.

• 3. The trial for confirmation of the scope of patent right is not a procedure to definitively determine the legal relationship between the parties to a dispute, nor is the judgment of the trial binding on the infringement lawsuit.

• 4. If there are any changes in the composition of the invention to be confirmed compared to that described in the claims of the patented invention, it is possible to determine whether the changes are such that an ordinary person skilled in the art can easily conceive of it by referring to the materials published after the application of the patented invention, but before the time of the trial judgment.

• 5. It is not sufficient to conclude that all components existing between the pre- and post-reduction structures have been intentionally excluded from the claimed scope based solely on the fact that a reduction in the claimed scope occurred during the application process. Instead, a comprehensive analysis of various factors is required.

• 6. When determining whether an invention to be confirmed falls within the scope of protection of the patented invention, each constituent element described in the claims of the patented invention must be included entirely in the invention subject to confirmation, along with the integral interrelationship among these constituent elements.