Attorney Park Sung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm LLC (LLC, Attorneys Masung-si et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant)

1. As to whether the defendant product belongs to the scope of protection of the patented invention of this case

A. In principle, the scope of protection of a patented invention is determined by the descriptions of the claims and it is not permissible to limit or expand the scope of protection by the description or drawing of the invention. However, the interpretation of the descriptions of claims can accurately understand the technical meaning by taking into account the description or drawing of the invention into account. Thus, the interpretation of the descriptions of claims should be based on the general meaning of the text, and should be objectively and reasonably examined the technical significance of the invention, taking into account the description or drawing of the invention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Hu10350, Feb. 14, 2019). Meanwhile, in order to determine that the patent right of the patented invention is infringed by the other party to the patent infringement lawsuit, the patent invention contains the description of each element of the patented invention and its elements, and the organic combination relation between the elements of the patented invention is also included in the patented invention’s product subject to infringement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da65818, Sept. 29, 2011).

2) The elements 6 and 7 of the Claim 1 invention of this case are "the internal air of the spreader flows into the inner space of the main body, and discharges it through the main body's air discharge outlet (class 6) and the external air flows into the spreader inside the diffusioner through the gap between the spreader and bees and the heat exchange with LDDr."

However, the text of the Claim No. 1 of this case did not limit the structure or shape of the outer air of 6 elements of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air' flows into the outer space of 'the outer air of 'the diffusioner and 'the gap between 'the diffusioner and bes'. In light of the description of the patented invention of this case, 'the elements of the patented invention of this case' are written to the effect that 'the internal air of 'the diffusioner's 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer space of 'the outer space of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of 'the outer air of '.

3) In response to the elements of the instant Claim No. 1, the Defendant’s product has a small gap between ELD and bees, and there are air discharge tools in this body. In addition, in response to the elements of the instant Claim No. 1, the Defendant’s product has a gap between ELD and bees, and there is a gap between the spreader and bes, if the latter part of the spreader is inserted into beer’s tolerance and combined with bes.

Defendant’s products enter the spreader inside through the gap between the spreader and bes, and the internal air in the spreader is entered into the inner space of the body through the gap between ELD plate and bes, and discharged through the air discharge outlet of the body through the gap between ELD plate and bes, and thereby cooling ELD locks.

Therefore, the Defendant’s products contain 6 and 7 elements of the instant Claim No. 1, where ELDr’s internal air flows into the inner space of the body, and discharges the body through the air outlet of the body, while the external air flows into the diffusioner inside the diffusioner through the gap between the spreader and bendr, and the heat exchange is called ELDr with ELDr.

C. We examine the aforementioned circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier. The Defendant’s products contain an organic combination between each constituent element and its constituent element described in the claims of the instant Claim No. 1, and thus, they should be deemed to fall within the scope of protection of the instant Claim No. 1.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s product did not belong to the scope of protection of the instant Claim No. 1 on the grounds that the elements of responding to the instant Claim No. 1 invention 6 and 7, on the grounds that the elements of the instant Claim No. 1 did not have the same elements as the elements of the instant Claim No. 6 and 7 in the combination process, on the grounds that the elements of the instant Claim No. 1 invention were derived from competitive cars, etc. and did not intentionally form the same effect as those of the elements 6, 7. In addition, the lower court did not separately examine whether the Defendant’s product falls under the scope of protection of the instant Claim No. 2, 4, and 8, which are subordinate inventions to the instant Claim No. 1 invention, and determined that the Defendant product did not fall under the scope of protection of the instant Claim No. 2, 4, and 8,

2. As to whether the plaintiff's claims based on patent rights of the inventions of paragraphs 1, 2, and 8 of this case constitute abuse of rights

The lower court, based on additional determination, partially accepted the Defendant’s defense that the Plaintiff’s claim for injunction against infringement and disuse based on the patent right of the instant patent invention constitutes an abuse of rights. In other words, the lower court determined that the instant claim based on the patent right of the instant Claim Nos. 1, 2, and 8 was an abuse of rights, since it is apparent that the patent would become null and void by the patent invalidation trial on the grounds that the nonobviousness is denied as a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the instant invention pertains could easily make an invention by prior inventions, and thus, the patent would be readily invalidated by the patent invalidation trial on the said invention. In light of relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by either violating the Supreme Court precedents or misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of inventive

Therefore, even if the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as seen earlier, which determined that the Defendant product did not belong to the scope of protection of the instant Claim Nos. 1, 2, and 8, the lower court’s additional determination rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim based on the patent right as an abuse of right does not affect the conclusion of the judgment as long as it is justifiable, and thus, the allegation in the grounds of appeal as to the instant Claim Nos.

3. Conclusion

A. The claim of this case is selectively combined with the prohibition of infringement and the claim for destruction based on each patent right of the inventions of paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (8) of this case. The judgment of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's claim based on each patent right of the inventions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (8) of this case is justifiable as seen earlier. However, as seen earlier, the court below erred by the misapprehension of the judgment that the defendant's product did not fall under the scope of protection of the Claim 4 of this case.

B. However, in a case where a plaintiff filed an appeal against a judgment of the appellate court that dismissed multiple selective joined claims, the court of final appeal should reverse the original judgment in its entirety when the court of final appeal recognizes that some of selective claims were reasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da95390, Jan. 19, 2012).

C. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims of this case based on patent rights of the inventions of paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (8) of this case which are selectively combined is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Min You-sook

Justices Lee In-bok and Lee Dong-won