[2] In a patent invalidation trial against a patent invention whose name is "spawn cleaning," where the correction was requested against paragraph (1) of the patent claim of the above patent invention, the case holding that the correction of Paragraph (2) of the above patent claim of the above patent invention does not constitute a case where the scope of the patent claim of the above patent invention is practically expanded or modified since the detailed description of the invention and the technical composition of the drawing are reflected in the specification of the above patent invention before correction, and it does not constitute an addition to the scope of the patent claim of the above patent invention, and it cannot be deemed that the new purpose and operation effect of the composition was not occurred, and it cannot be deemed that the new purpose and operation effect was not likely to cause unexpected damage to

[3] The purpose of Articles 133-2 and 136(3) of the former Patent Act and the scope of correction of errors

1. Articles 133-2 and 136(3) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 7871 of Mar. 3, 2006; hereinafter the same applies) provide that the respondent of a patent invalidation trial may request correction of the specification or drawings to the extent that the claims do not substantially expand or modify the claims. Here, whether the scope of the claims is substantially extended or modified shall be determined by comparing the entire scope of the claims before and after the correction, including the detailed description of the claims itself, with regard to the entire specification, including not only the formal description of the claims itself, but also the detailed description of the invention. Further, the scope of the claims shall be determined to be reduced; it shall not be deemed that there is any change in the purpose or effect thereof; and it shall be reflected in the detailed description and drawings, and if it is not likely that the applicant or other third parties cause unexpected damage to the claims, it shall not constitute a substantial change in the scope of claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Hu2815, Dec. 11, 2001>

2. We examine records in light of the above legal principles.

In a patent invalidation trial against the patented invention of this case (Patent No. 477380), the Plaintiff filed a request for correction against Paragraph 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”) of the scope of the patent application of this case (Patent No. 477380). The correction of Paragraph 1 in the decision of the court below as to the invention of this case is clear in the operating direction of external physical management and added the composition of the intermediate language. The detailed description and drawing in the specification of the patented invention of this case are as follows: (a) when lids are opened or closed, the external physical management members are either slids or misunderstandings into the outside when lids are opened or closed; and (b) so that the horizontal and horizontal language of the first horizontal and second horizontal terms can be carried out a round-down movement, and thus, it cannot be said that it does not constitute a new modification or modification to the scope of the patent application of this case prior to correction. Therefore, it cannot be said that it does not constitute a new modification or modification to the scope of the patent application.

In addition, the purport of Articles 133-2 and 136(3) of the former Patent Act is to allow a patentee who has become the respondent in an invalidation trial to file a request for correction within the invalidation trial procedure without a separate request for a trial for correction. The scope of the request is to reduce the scope of claims to the extent that is not likely to infringe a third party's right, or to limit correction of errors by correcting errors or errors by correcting errors. In light of the purport of these provisions, it is interpreted that correction of errors includes the correction of claims where the description of claims does not clearly specify the meaning of the claims in itself, and where the detailed description of the claims and the scope of claims are inconsistent or contradictory, it shall be interpreted that there is no inconsistency (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu3096, Jul. 28, 2006). Therefore, it cannot be said that the correction of claims constitutes a substantial modification solely on the ground that the lack of claims in the patent invention was resolved due to the correction.

In the same purport, the court below's decision that the correction of this case does not constitute a substantial expansion or modification of the scope of claims is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Articles 133-2 and 136 (3) of the former Patent Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. Other grounds of appeal are dismissed as it criticizes the judgment below from its own perspective.

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.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)