The court below explained in detail whether the invention executed by the defendant (hereinafter "the invention subject to confirmation") falls under the scope of the plaintiff's right to the patented invention of this case (Patent No. 101374). While it is clear that the patented invention of this case falls under the scope of the plaintiff's right to the patented invention of this case (Patent No. 101374), the invention subject to confirmation is an invention of the method of combining Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Madra's Mad's.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. Article 135 of the Patent Act provides that a patentee or an interested person may file a petition for confirmation of the scope of a patent right to confirm the scope of a patent invention. Article 127 Subparag. 2 of the Patent Act provides that where a patent is the invention of a method, an act of producing, transferring, leasing, importing, or offering for the transfer or lease of, articles used exclusively for working the method shall be deemed infringement of the patent right or exclusive license. Thus, the patentee or interested person may seek confirmation as to whether an article compared with the articles used exclusively for working the method falls under the scope of a patent right by specifying it as the invention subject to a request for adjudication.

B. In light of the records, it is reasonable to view the patented invention of this case as the invention of this case as the invention of this case is an invention of the method of combining the saves and saves that can be seen as an invention of this case by inserting a hole of saves, saves, covers, covers, saves, etc. into the saves, inserting an saves, inserting an saves into the saves, combining an saves with an saves, and combining an saves with an saves and saves at the stage of combining an saves with an saves and saves and saves, etc. The invention of this case is merely an invention of this case of this case of this case with the title of "saves and saves" as an invention of this case of this case. On the other hand, it is not an invention of this case of savesavesaves and saves.

C. If so, the court below should consider whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case in preparation for the challenged invention and the patented invention of this case, and determine whether the challenged invention falls under the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case. However, the remaining challenged invention and the patented invention of this case, which concluded that the challenged invention of this case is not specific enough to prepare for the patented invention of this case on the ground that it is unclear which the invention of this case falls under any of the scope of the right to the patented invention of this case, shall not be compared and judged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the specification of the challenged invention of this case and the incomplete deliberation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)