[1] Where the scope of claims can be limited upon different descriptions from the specification

[2] The case holding that the invention in question does not fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention by interpreting the scope of the right to the patented invention using the name "a printing method in color"

[1] The scope of a patent right or the scope of a patent protection shall be determined by the claims described in the specification accompanying the patent application, and, in cases where the technical scope is apparent only by the description of the claims, it shall not, in principle, be interpreted to limit the scope of a patent right by other descriptions in the specification. However, when interpreting the claims as they are clearly unreasonable in light of other descriptions in the specification, it may be interpreted to limit the scope of a patent right by taking into account the contents in the applicant’s professional engineer, other descriptions in the specification, the applicant’s intent

[2] The case holding that the invention in question, with two colors from one printing board, does not fall under the scope of the right to the patented invention, on the ground that the scope of the right to the patented invention, using the name "a printing method in color," is limited to only one printing board to the invention with one color printed, and the invention in question, with two colors from one printing board, does not fall under the scope of right to the patented invention

[1] Article 135 of the Patent Act / [2] Article 135 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu2856 decided Jul. 11, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1731)

Cultural Industry Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Yoon-sub et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Patent Attorney Full Completion and four others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2006Heo7245 decided May 10, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The scope or scope of a patent right shall be determined by the claims described in the specification attached to the patent application, and, in cases where the technical scope is apparent only with the claims, it cannot, in principle, be interpreted by other descriptions in the specification. However, in cases where interpreting the claims as they are clearly unreasonable in light of the different descriptions in the specification, the scope of a patent right may be interpreted by comprehensively taking into account the contents in the application, other descriptions in the specification, the intent of the applicant, and the legal stability of the third party (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu2856, Jul. 11, 2003).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below interpreted the scope of the right to the invention of paragraph (1) only to the invention of this case (patent No. 176284) using the name "printed printing method in color" as the "printed printing method in color" only to the "printed file in the form of a piece", and it is somewhat inappropriate to determine that the "book No. 176284" in the judgment of the court below should be excluded from the composition of a unit of a piece of file. However, the scope of the right to the invention of paragraph (1) is limited to the invention of this case with only one color printed from one printing board, taking into account the purpose, effect, example, intent of the applicant, etc. as stated in the detailed description, and interpreted the scope of the right to the invention of this case as the invention of this case, which has two colors simultaneously from one printing board, does not fall under the scope of the right to the invention of this case. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to interpretation of the scope of the claim and infringement as asserted in the ground of appeal.

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 Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)