The defendant's assistant intervenor's motion to intervene.

1. Article 89 of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 11117, Dec. 2, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides that “In cases of an invention prescribed by Presidential Decree, for which a long period of time is required due to an activity, safety tests, etc., necessary for executing the relevant permit, registration, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “permission, etc.”) to implement the patented invention, the term of the relevant patent may be extended by up to five years for the period during which the patent cannot be worked, notwithstanding Article 88 (1)” by providing that “The term of the relevant patent may be extended by up to five years for the period during which the patent cannot be worked in order to obtain permission, etc. under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, etc.”

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Hu882, 899, Nov. 29, 2017). Article 7 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act provides for an invention that requires marketing approval under Article 26(1) or 34(1) of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (amended by Act No. 8365, Apr. 11, 2007) to practice a patented invention as one of the “an invention prescribed by Presidential Decree requiring funeral period” under the foregoing provision.

On the other hand, Article 95 of the former Patent Act provides that "the effects of a patent, the term of which has been extended, shall not extend to any act other than the working of the patented invention with respect to the goods subject to permission, etc. on which the registration of the extension was based (where the use of the goods is specified in the permission, etc., the goods used

As such, the Patent Act stipulates the scope of effect of a patent, the term of which has been extended, and the reason for registering the extension is not based on the claims.