The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The lower court determined that the invention in question as indicated in the judgment of the lower court does not include the elements of “cream process that combines the mother in its original form and equally diversifys the ability to respond to the claim 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim 1”) of the instant patent invention (patent registration number G”) as indicated in the judgment of the lower court with its name as “D” and the elements of “chilling process that forms the mother in its original form” among the claims 2 (hereinafter “instant Claim 2”) of the instant patent invention, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the invention in question falls under the scope of the right to the instant Claim 1 and Claim 2 without examining whether the remainder of the instant Claim 1 and Claim 2 are included in the challenged invention.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the scope of protection of a patented invention,

Therefore, all appeals are 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.