The judgment below

Among Q22, the part against the Defendants regarding the claim for damages relating to patent rights in Q22.

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

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. (1) As to the occurrence of liability for damages, prior to the amendment by Act No. 12753, Jun. 11, 2014, the Patent Act that became final and conclusive by the inventor of Q22

(a) The same shall apply;

The main text of Article 33(1) provides that a person who makes an invention or his/her successor has the right to obtain a patent as prescribed by the Patent Act. Article 2(1) of the Patent Act provides that “Invention” means the creation of a highly advanced technical idea using the law of nature. As such, “the inventor” as provided in the main sentence of Article 33(1) of the Patent Act refers to a person who makes such invention.

Therefore, in order to be an inventor, only the basic task and idea of the invention were provided, or the researcher was generally managed, or the researcher was only organized and tested by the researcher's instruction or entrusted with the completion of the invention by providing financial facilities, etc., and it is not limited to the extent of supporting the completion of the invention. A person who newly presented and supplemented a specific aspect to solve the technical task of the invention, a person who embodys a new aspect through experiments, etc., a person who is able to make the invention by providing specific means and methods to achieve the purpose and effects of the invention, or by providing specific advice and guidance.

Meanwhile, in the case of chemical invention called the so-called experimental science, there may be differences between the contents of the invention and the level of technology, but if there is no experimental data presented due to a lack of predictability or possibility, it shall be completed.