[1] The method of determining the scope of a patent right, the scope of a patent protection, and the method of interpreting the terms indicated in the patent specification

[2] The case holding that, in light of the term "balpt plic plic plic plics" itself, the term used in the claims of the patented invention itself cannot be seen as being used only for plic plics, and the technical composition of which is not known by a person with ordinary skill in the field of disposable plics, and considering the relationship between each independent invention of the claims, the inventor and ordinary technician's awareness of minority plic plics and the description of "balutism or fluid plic plics" among the materials of plics launched in the detailed description of the patented invention, the term "balut plic plics" among the materials of plics commenced in the detailed description of the patented invention, is not included in the scope of the right to the patented invention

[1] Articles 42(2) and (4), and 97 of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 42(2) and (4), and 97 of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Hu1040 Decided April 10, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1361), Supreme Court Decision 99Hu2150 Decided April 12, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1157), Supreme Court Decision 2002Hu130 Decided November 28, 2003 (Gong2005Ha, 1720), Supreme Court Decision 2006 Decided September 29, 2005 (Gong205Ha, 1720), Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2240 Decided December 222, 2006 (Gong207Hu883 Decided June 14, 2007)

LLC et al. (Law Firm Ros et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Elmmchemical Co., Ltd. and two others (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na20130, 20147 decided November 23, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

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

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9

In principle, the scope of a patent right or the scope of protection shall be determined by the matters described in the scope of a patent application attached to the patent application. However, in a case where the description alone contains a description of goods according to functions, effects, character, etc. and the technical composition of the patent invention is not clearly known, the technical composition of the patent invention shall be determined by taking into account the detailed description of the invention or drawings (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Hu2240, Dec. 22, 2006; 2007Hu883, Jun. 14, 2007). As long as the term used in the specification is not defined in a specific meaning, it shall be interpreted uniformly through the entire specification in accordance with the meaning of terms generally known to the person who has ordinary knowledge in the relevant technical field (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary technician"). Furthermore, in light of the legal justice of an applicant and stability of the scope of a patent application 209Hu386, Sep. 29, 2005, it shall be reasonably interpreted differently from the description described in 139.

In light of the above legal principles and records, it is judged as follows.

Even though the patent scope of the patented invention (Patent No. 62,865) of this case (Patent No. 62,865) refers to a barriers on which one side of the body and gases are fixed that are in the nature of administering liquid and gaseous substance, such as urinals and snow sheds, the term "genetic fooby foo" used in the scope of the patent claim 2 (Patent No. 62,865) of the patented invention of this case means not only the form of fluid foobyps, but also the form of material constituting foobyps, the direction and size of pressure on material, and the continuous time of pressure, etc., and the function of fluid fooby foos and barriers function conflict with each other. Thus, the term as an ordinary technician in the field of lump sum foosing, the technical composition itself cannot be known by itself.

In full view of the specifications, drawings, and the intentions of applicants, etc., of this case: (a) the patented invention of this case includes a small number of 2 kinds of plug-type 1 to be used as an independent product without any limit; (b) the use of plug-type 2 to a small number of plug-type 2 to be used as an independent product; and (c) the use of plug-type 2 to a small number of plug-type 2 to be used as an independent product; and (d) the use of ploo-type 2 to a small number of plug-type 2 to be used as an independent product without any specific definition of plug-type 3 to be used as an independent product; and (e) the use of ploo-type 2 to a small number of plug-type 1 to be used as an independent product. It is appropriate that the instant patent invention can be seen as an “explug-type 4 to be used as an independent product.”

As such, with respect to the "copic frap" of the Claim 2 of this case, the "popic frap" was initiated only in the detailed description of the invention, and since the "popic fraper ordinarily used for ropic ropper" was commenced, the defendants' products in the holding of the court below that do not have liquid and gaseous ropic ropic ropic ropic ropic rhetor shall not be deemed to be included in the scope of the right

The court below determined that the claim 1 invention of this case set the scope of the right of plby of all materials, and the claim 2 invention of this case limited the scope of the right to the plby of plby of plby of plby of plby of plby of plby of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of pla of this case. Thus, it is somewhat inappropriate in its reasoning that the defendants did not infringe the claim 2 of this case.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision cited in the ground of appeal by the plaintiffs is to determine whether the instant Claim 2 invention satisfies the patent requirements, and it does not constitute a completed invention as it does not interfere with the performance of the brick function and thus, it does not go against the judgment in the instant case where the specific scope of protection is determined.

2. As to grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 8

The preparation of evidence and the acknowledgement of facts are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court, and this does not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da77848, May 25, 2006). The court below, after compiling the admitted evidence, acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the products of the defendants cannot be deemed to fall within the scope of the right to the invention of paragraph (2) of this case only based on the result of the appraisal by the appraiser assistant, the first instance court, and the result of the verification by the court below, based on its stated reasoning, is just and there

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 6

The evidence requested by the parties that the court is not necessary may not be examined, and it does not necessarily require the decision of the evidence collection ledger (see Supreme Court Decisions 65Da159, May 31, 1965; 89Ma694, September 7, 1989, etc.). Thus, even if the court below did not examine the evidence of the plaintiff and did not record the judgment in the pleading protocol in the purport that it refuses it, it cannot be deemed unlawful. Therefore, there is no error of incomplete deliberation as asserted in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)