The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.

Judgment ex officio is made.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below determined that the scope of right of the claim 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "claim 1 invention of this case") of the patented invention (patent registration number B) of this case, the name of which is "C", is not indicated in the specification so that a person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains can easily practice or reproduce it, and thus, the scope of right cannot be recognized. Even if the scope of right can be recognized, the invention in question lacks the same or equal composition as that of the Claim 1 invention of this case, and thus, it does not fall under the scope

However, according to the records, on December 23, 2014, after the judgment of the court below was rendered upon the defendants' request for a correction of the contents of the Claim No. 1 of this case, which corrected "70 to 90 to 100%," and became final and conclusive around that time. Thus, the Claim No. 1 of this case should be deemed to have been registered in accordance with the specifications after the correction was made pursuant to Article 136(9) of the former Patent Act (amended by Act No. 6411 of Feb. 3, 2001).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which examined and determined whether the invention subject to confirmation falls under the scope of right prior to correction as to the invention of this case No. 1, and there were grounds for retrial under Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thereby, there was an error of law that affected the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.