The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s implementation of the patented invention of this case is difficult solely on the following grounds: (a) although the probs used by the Defendant in the contact with the instant equipment form a screen screen; (b) however, it is difficult to conclude that

This part of the grounds of appeal is merely erroneous in the selection of evidence, determination of value of evidence, and fact-finding based thereon, which belong to the free evaluation of the fact-finding court. In light of the records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 7, the lower court determined that the patent right does not extend to the replacement of prob, as part of the Defendant’s use and use, of prob, inasmuch as the Defendant’s use of the contact device of this case, as the former product of this case, constitutes the implementation of the patented invention, even if the Defendant’s use of the contact device of this case constitutes the implementation of the patented invention of this case.

The judgment of the court below on this part is a provisional decision on the family register, and as long as the judgment of the court below that it was difficult to see that the defendant implemented the patented invention of this case as seen above, the legitimacy of the above family register determination does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the grounds for appeal on this cannot be accepted without further review.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.