The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

1. As to the propriety of the lower court’s determination on the basis of the specification, etc. before the correction, even if the trial decision on the said request for correction becomes final and conclusive after the closure of pleadings at the lower court’s trial as to the revocation of the trial decision regarding the patent invalidation trial within the patent invalidation trial procedure, there is room for re-examination under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment below

No. (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Hu2522, Jan. 22, 2020). Therefore, even if a trial decision on a request for correction becomes final and conclusive in a patent invalidation trial against the instant patent invention (patent number G) under the name of “D” after the conclusion of the oral argument in the lower court, the final appeal shall determine whether the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of whether the scope of rights falls under the scope of the lower judgment based on the specification, etc. prior to the correction.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the scope of protection of the patent invention shall be determined based on the claims. However, in a case where the technical composition of the patent invention is unknown or it is impossible to determine the technical scope even if the description alone is known, the supplement may be made pursuant to another description in the specification. However, even in such a case, an extension of the claims is not allowed by another description in the specification, and where the technical scope is apparent solely with the description of the claims, the scope of claims cannot be limited by other description in the specification (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2377, Feb. 10, 201). The lower court did not limit the location of the blocking wall against the occurrence of the patent invention in the specification of the patent invention in this case, insofar as the location of the blocking wall against the occurrence of the electronic device is not limited, it cannot be interpreted that it is more spatial than that of the additional wall against the occurrence of the electronic device, and the content of the patent invention in this case is merely an example in which one of urban drawings.