▲Clockwise Torque＝Brake GearClockwise TorqueAmount of Tension×Roll Paper

TensionDistance from Rotation Axis（r2）balance

Brakeｒ２▼Counterclockwise Torque＝Amount of Braking Force×Braking ForceCounterclockwise Torqueｒ１Distance from Rotation Axis（r1）Roll Holderroll paper is used →r2 (radius of the roll paper) decreased→off-balance (sheet is cut)However, the correct outer diameter cannot be detecteddue to the distortion of the roll paper.

Correct Outer
DiameterOuter DiameterDetected by SensorHowever, the correct outer diameter cannot be detecteddue to the rotational deviation between the roll holder andthe core tube of the roll paper.
Rotation Angle of Roll HolderRotation Angle of Roll Paperrotational deviationDetect the rotationangle of the roll
paper (θ)

Detect the sheet feedlength (S)Sheet feedlength (S)Calculate the outer diameter of the roll paper(2R) { S=R X θ}Adjust the braking force according to thecalculated outer diameter of the roll paper (2R)Even if the outer diameter of the roll paperchanges, the packaging sheet S can be drawnout with appropriate tension.

Packaging SheetRotationangle of theroll paper (θ)

Roll PaperClaim of the PatentAA roll paper used for an article packaging device,Bwherein the article packaging device, comprising:B1a rotatable roll holder to which the roll paper is detachably
attached;B2a feed roller drawing out a heat-sealable packaging sheetfrom the roll paper;B3a rotation angle sensor detecting a rotation angle of the rollpaper;B4a sheet length measuring sensor measuring sheet feedlength drawn out from the roll paper; andB5a brake applying a variable braking force to the roll holder,B6is configured to adjust the braking force applying to the rollholder based on the outer diameter of the roll papercalculated from the detected signals of the rotation anglesensor and the sheet length sensor, andCwherein the roll paper, comprising:C1a core tube, having magnets, attachable to the roll holder;C2a packaging sheet wound around the core tube; andC3the magnets are disposed at respective positions detectableby the rotation angle sensor when the core tube is attachedto the roll holder.

Article Packaging DeviceFeed RollerSheet LengthSensorPackaging Sheet

Roll PaperBrakeCore TubeRoll HolderMagnetSupport ShaftRotation Angle SensorJapan(CorrespondingPatent Right: Yes)

Core tubeCollectManufacture/sellModifyDefendant’sProductPlaintiff’s Roll PaperBorderGrant a license on theCorresponding PatentRight in JapanKorea(Patent Right: Yes)ImportSellSellDefendant’s Infringement ActionTurtle (a wholly owned subsidiary ofthe Defendant) winds a packagingsheet on the used core tube.

Core tubePackaging SheetMagnetA used core tube of the RollPaper manufactured and soldby Collie (a wholly ownedsubsidiary of the Plaintiff)Magnet
Core tubeCountry KoreaCountry JapanPatent RightCorrespondingPatent RightNo international exhaustion by exercising two different patent rights.The act of winding the packaging sheet on the used core tubeof the Plaintiff’s Roll Paper is not simple replacement.The act to wind again the packaging sheet on the used core tube of thePlaintiff’s Roll Paper removes the identity with the original product.S: sheet feed length detected by the sensorΘ: rotation angle of the roll paper detected by the sensor<Plaintiff's roll paper shape><Defendant's Product shape>Roll PaperCore tubee.g. packaging sheet residueremaining on the used coretubeThe shape of the rollpaper may be deformed.

Purpose of the test:We confirmed the error between thecalculated outer diameter of the rollpaper and the actual diameter of theroll paper (when the Defendant’sproduct is applied to the Plaintiff’sarticle packaging device).-Defendant's ProductPlaintiff's Roll PaperErrors between calculated outer diameter of the rollpaper (dc) and actual outer diameter of the roll paper(da) (%)

4.1%2.4%* calculated outer diameter of the roll paper (dc)= 2 X sheet feed length measured by the sheet length sensor (S) / rotation angle of the roll paper measured by the rotation angle
sensor (θ)* actual outer diameter of the roll paper (da)= average outer diameter of the roll paper during the time of measurement measured by a separate sensorIt is confirmed that the outer diameter of the roll paper was not accurately calculated when theDefendant’s product was used in the Plaintiff’s article packaging device.MethodOnline survey

SubjectUser of the Plaintiff’s article packaging deviceAreaSeoul, Daejeon, Daegu, Busan, GwangjuTypically, roll papers are used only once,and general users do not reuse the coretube.Among users who used both companies' products,many evaluated the quality of the plaintiff's rollpaper higher.

Users highly evaluated that when the roll paper was attached to thearticle packaging device, the packaging sheet was drawn out with anappropriate tension, and that the packaging was well done.
It is confirmed that the act of winding again the packaging sheet on the used coretube of the Plaintiff’s Roll Paper has removed the identity with the original product.12The Defendant argues that the identity of the product is maintained even afterwinding the packaging sheet on a used core tube.

It claims that the quality of the core tube is unaffected because winding the packing sheet does not cause anydamage to the magnets included in the core tube.

Erroneous as in utter disregard with the problem the patented invention solves.
•The patented invention enables accurate detection of the outer diameter of the roll paper to properlyadjust the braking force. Among others, distortion of the outer shape of the roll paper is a commonreason that hinders accurate measurement (paragraph [0004]).

•Winding a packaging sheet onto a used core tube is likely to cause distortion of the outer shape of theroll paper for the following reasons:① Uneven surface of the used core tube (remaining packaging sheet residue, adhesives, etc.)② Damage to the core tube caused in the process of attaching the new packaging sheet③ Winding of a packaging sheet to a complete cylinder shape requires precision. In the absence ofsuch precision, the outer diameters will be uneven.12The Defendant argues that the act of winding a packaging sheet is a merereplacement of consumables.

It claims that re-winding a packaging sheet onto the used core tube is no more than a replacement ofconsumables and consumers are more concerned about the variety of the packaging sheets.

The argument fails to consider how consumers use the roll papers in the market.
•The Plaintiff is the patentee of the article packaging device and the roll paper. Itmanufactures and sells roll papers, not packaging sheet, as consumables.

•After the packaging sheet is used up, consumers do not purchase a new packaging sheetproduct and wind it onto the core tube. Mostly, they purchase a new roll paper, either fromthe Plaintiff or the Defendant.

•As such, the Defendant also manufactures and sells roll papers, i.e. the patented product,not the packaging sheet.1. The objective nature of the patented product2. The manner that the patented product is used - Replacement of the packagingsheet does not constitute replacement of an essential element of the patentedproductTEST REPORT(1) ClientDonkey Corp.

(2) Test DateSeptember 1, 2023(3) Test MethodThe subject device and compared devicewere tested with our standard equipmentin accordance with the manufacturer’smanual(4) Test ResultSee the test resultIt is hereby certified that the present report is a test report dulyissued by K Measurement Center.
September 5, 2023President of K Measurement CenterFrom September 2017 to March 2020, you worked at the manufacture/technologydivision of Turtle Corp., the Defendant’s Japanese subsidiary. Is this correct?

It is difficult to separate only the core tube from the Plaintiff’s roll paper that hasbeen used up because the packaging sheet was attached to the core tube using heat.
Is this correct?
It is difficult to maintain the quality of the final product made by re-winding apackaging sheet if the previous packaging sheet has not been completely removed. Isthis correct?Turtle used specially manufactured equipment to re-wind a packaging sheet aroundthe core tube with precision. Is this correct?

Is it possible for general users to easily wind a packaging sheet without the help ofthe above equipment?

Imprecise winding would likely lead to a packaging sheet be cut during use. Is thiscorrect?Turtle also went through a series of trial and error in the beginning ofmanufacturing its re-wound roll papers due to unsecured precision. Is this correct?You were dismissed from Turtle in 2020. Is this correct?

You were dismissed for taking bribes from one of the vendors in relation to sampledevelopment. Is this correct?Turtle’s product was first released in September 2022. As you were dismissed in2020, you never engaged in testing the newly released product. Is this correct?

You never engaged in comparing or analyzing the current (2023) Turtle product andthe Plaintiff’s product. Is this correct?What have you been doing for a living since you left Turtle in 2020?

You stated that producing roll papers require specially manufactured equipment.
How did you make roll papers when you operated your own business?Through the test data and survey result submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff confirmedthat the Defendant’s roll paper is not of a high quality compared to the Plaintiff’s rollpaper (e.g., the diameter of the Defendant’s roll paper is not precisely measured).
Through the witness examination, the Plaintiff confirmed that (1) it is not easy toseparate only the core tube from the Plaintiff’s roll paper; (2) it is difficult to maintainthe quality of the final product if the packaging sheet has not been completely removed;and (3) general users cannot easily wind a packaging sheet around the core tube.
Although the Defendant argues that re-winding a packaging sheet around an already usedcore tube would not affect the identity with the original roll paper product and that suchact simply constitutes “replacement”, the facts as verified and confirmed above show thatthe Defendant’s such arguments are not reasonable.Intellectual Property High CourtIntellectual Property High Court Decision 2023Na1017 renderedon Oct 17, 2023[Order]1. The lower court’s decision shall be revoked.
2. The Defendant shall not produce, use, transfer, lend, import, orexhibit the Defendant’s Product (Model: Turtle1017).
3. The Defendant shall bear the total cost arising from the lawsuit.
4. Paragraph 2 may be enforced provisionally.

[Opinion]Unless there are exceptional circumstances, when a patentee, etc., hastransferred a patented product to a third party, the patentee’s patent right inthe product shall be exhausted as having achieved its purpose.
However, if the patented product has been processed or modified to theextent that the identity of the original product is lost, it can be evaluatedthat the patentee’s patent rights shall be considered infringed.
Here, whether a patented product has been processed or modified to theextent that the identity of the original product is lost, and therefore, the actof producing has taken place shall be decided based on a comprehensiveassessment of the description of the patented invention, the objectivenature of the product, and the use form, legislative purpose of the Patent
Act, etc.<1> The description of the patented invention (Roll Paper) is as follows:The patented roll paper is exclusively used for article packaging devices. Itincludes magnets on the core tube, and the magnets are arranged to measurelocations by the rotation angle sensor in the article packaging device. Thisenables the rotation angle of the roll paper itself to be precisely measured andthe braking force to be properly adjusted according to the external diameter ofthe roll paper.
<2> The objective nature of Plaintiff’s patented product is as follows:Plaintiff manufactured and sold the Roll Paper on the premise that the coretube of the Roll paper would be used one-time. When the core tube is reusedafter one-time use of Plaintiff’s patented product, it is difficult for ordinary usersto remove the core tube. In addition, securing the quality of the core tube ofPlaintiff’s Roll Paper is difficult. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that thePlaintiff’s patented product has lost its utility after one-time use.<3> Finally, the use form of the product is as follows:Plaintiff's patented product is exclusively used in Plaintiff's packaging device,and the packaging sheet part makes up a distinctive portion of the compositionof Plaintiff's roll paper. In addition, as examined above, the Plaintiff's patentedproduct loses its utility after it is used up. Therefore, it is reasonable to concludethat replacing the packaging sheet to the plaintiff's core tube cannot beregarded as replacing a consumable component under normal use, but rather asreplacing the component that constitutes an essential portion of the invention.

Therefore, Defendant’s act infringes Plaintiff’s patent rights, and Plaintiff’sargument is well grounded. For this reason, the lower court’s decisionrendered shall be revoked.