Law Firm Sejong (Law Firm LLC, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant

Patent Attorney Han-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Determination on the first ground of appeal

In principle, the scope of protection of a patent invention is determined on the basis of the matters described in the claims. However, even if the description alone is unable to identify or know the technical composition of the patented invention, if it is impossible to determine the technical scope, the supplement may be made by other descriptions in the specification. However, in such a case, the interpretation of the scope of claims may not be permitted by other descriptions in the specification, as well as by other descriptions in the specification, in a case where the technical scope is apparent solely based on the description in the scope of claims, the interpretation of the scope of claims may not be limited by other descriptions in the specification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2377, Feb. 10, 201).

The court below found that the part of the control group No. 1-4 of the elements of the patented invention(patent number omitted) of this case(hereinafter "patent number No. 1 invention of this case") which provides a correction of the non-distance reduction rate of "B" is to adjust the non-distance according to the tragical nature according to the topographical conditions and the traging condition. First, the court below interpreted this part of the judgment of the court below that the control group No. 1-4 of the elements of the patented invention(patent No. 1 of this case) of this case(patent No. 1 of this case is to adjust the distance according to the traging condition. In this case, the court below interpreted this part of the judgment of the court below which did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles and the reasoning of the judgment of the court below.

2. Determination on the second ground of appeal

For the same reasons as the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the invention of paragraphs 1 through 4, 6, and 9 of this case in the art of this case is not denied the truth-finding because it is difficult to see that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art of this case can easily derive through the combination of the prior inventions 1 and 2, and on this premise, the claim of this case in this premise violates the principle of absence of one day.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the original court in light of relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s reasoning was partially inappropriate, but the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on determination of inventive step or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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 Kwon Soon-il

Justices Park Jung-hwa

Jeju High Court Justice Kim Jong-soo