[1] A method of determining the scope of protection of a patented invention and a method of interpreting the scope of claims

[2] In a case where the interpretation of the "emergency call from an emergency contact point", which is the matters indicated in the claim scope of the patented invention using the name of "emergency call processing device and method using mobile communication network", is at issue, the case affirming the judgment below which held that the request for emergency call from an emergency contact point by the mobile communication terminal user, should be interpreted as a request for new call connection with a separate personal emergency contact point, which is the main agent

[3] Criteria for determining whether the subject product falls under the scope of the right of the patented invention, and the meaning and method of determining that the subject product falls under the scope of the right of the patented invention, and that "the solution principle of the patented invention and the subject matter are identical" as a requirement to

[4] In a case where the issue was whether the claim and the principle of resolving the task described in the claim(s) of a patented invention is identical to the claim(s) claim(s) of the pertinent product(s) using the mobile communication network as the name of the subject product(s) and Allar(s) are identical, the case holding that the subject product cannot be deemed the same as the solution principle because it does not have the characteristic composition of the invention(s)

[1] Articles 42 and 97 of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 42 and 97 of the Patent Act / [3] Article 97 of the Patent Act / [4] Article 97 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2240 Decided December 22, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu1902 Decided November 29, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da45876 Decided October 15, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1817) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu3806 Decided June 25, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1239Ha, 1239), Supreme Court Decision 2007Da66422 Decided December 24, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu296 Decided May 27, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1296)

Seocho Telecom Co., Ltd. (LLC, Kim & Kim LLC, Attorneys Ko Hyun-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

EL Plus Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Spah, Attorneys Kim Jae-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na53231 decided August 19, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the first ground for appeal

The scope of protection of a patented invention is not permitted to limit or expand the scope of claims based on the description, drawings, etc. of the invention, unless there are special circumstances. However, the interpretation of the scope of claims can accurately understand the technical meaning of the invention by taking into account the detailed description, drawings, etc. Therefore, the interpretation of the scope of claims should be objectively and rationally after considering the technical significance of the invention, which is intended to express in accordance with the said description in light of the detailed description, drawings, etc., while based on the general meaning of the contents of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Hu240, Dec. 22, 2006; 2006Hu1902, Nov. 29, 2007).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the “emergency call from an emergency contact point” among the elements of the patent invention (patent No. 379946) claim No. 3 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 3”) of this case using the name “emergency call processing device using mobile communication network and its method” is reasonable to interpret the “emergency call from an emergency contact point” as a new emergency contact request from a mobile communication terminal operator as the subject of the emergency contact. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the scope of protection of a patented invention or incomplete deliberation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In order for a product to be compared to a patented invention to be within the scope of protection of the patented invention (hereinafter referred to as "subject product"), the organic combination relationship between each element described in the claim(s) of the patented invention and that element(s) must be included in the subject product. Meanwhile, even in cases where the subject product has a part of the composition or modification described in the claim(s) of the patented invention, the solution principle of the patented invention and its task can be identical, even if it is based on such interpretation, the same purpose can be achieved and the same effect can be practically expressed in the patented invention. If it is obvious to the extent that anyone can easily think that the subject product has an ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary technician"), it is equivalent to the technology already known at the time of the application for the patented invention, or that there is an obvious exclusion from the claim(s) of the subject product from the known art at the time of application(s) of the patented invention(s) and the part(s) indicated in the claim(s) of the patented invention(s) within 20.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, among paragraph (3) inventions of this case, the composition of "control means which only prohibit the reception of hydrogen voice signals through the transmitting department and allow the transmission of hydrogen voice through the transmitting department by executing an emergency call from the emergency contact point" of elements 4 of paragraph (3) inventions of this case is compared to prior art in light of the detailed description of the invention in the specification and the prior art at the time of application, in order to solve the task to provide emergency call processing devices using the mobile communication network leading to the emergency contact point so that the situation of the terminal possessor can be detected by the secret, if the emergency contact point is requested by the emergency contact point, it is an employment of a special method to solve the essential part or characteristic of the invention in paragraph (3) invention of this case. However, the defendant's service and Alrall do not have any characteristic of the invention in this case and do not have any need to solve the problem identical to paragraph (3) invention of this case without any equivalent modification of paragraph (3) invention of this case.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the defendant's service and Aloneidine do not constitute an equal infringement of the claim 3 invention of this case, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to equal infringement as otherwise alleged in the ground 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.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)