특허권침해금지 청구의 소
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2
(a) The scope of protection of a patented invention shall be determined by the descriptions of the claims;
In order to interpret the meaning of the text, it should be objectively and rationally based on the general meaning of the text and text, and in consideration of the description, drawing, etc. of invention.
In addition, in a case where the technical composition is not known from the text of the claim(s), the scope of protection of the patented invention should be determined by establishing the technical composition in which the text is to be expressed by supplementing different descriptions and drawings of the specification.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2240 Decided December 22, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Da45876 Decided October 15, 2009, etc.). The term used in the specification of a patent needs to be interpreted uniformly through the entire specification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu486, Sept. 29, 2005). As such, the term used in the specification of a patent need to be interpreted uniformly through the entire specification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu486, Sept. 29, 2
B. The lower court determined that the term “C” and the term “compact” of the instant patent invention claims 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant patent claims”) and the instant patent claims 4 ought to be construed as a combination that functions as maintaining confidentiality, by integrating the Plaintiff’s specification and drawings of the instant patent invention (patent number F) in the name of “C”.
Examining the above legal principles and records, the lower judgment is based on the foregoing legal doctrine. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the scope of claims as alleged in the
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court specified that the products listed in the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 6 as indicated in the judgment below are “Defendant’s implementation products” and then Paragraph 4 of this case.