[1] The case holding that after the expiration of the term of a patent right, a patentee cannot claim the prohibition of patent infringement and the disuse of a patent infringement product under Article 126 of the Patent Act, based on the extinguished patent invention

[2] Method of determining the scope of protection of a patented invention

[3] The case holding that the legal principle of presumption of negligence under Article 130 of the Patent Act is maintained before and after correction even if a correction decision of the claim becomes final and conclusive

[1] The case holding that after the expiration of the term of a patent right, a patentee cannot claim the prohibition of patent infringement and the disuse of a patent infringement product under Article 126 of the Patent Act, based on the extinguished patent invention

[2] The scope of protection of a patented invention shall be determined by the matters described in the scope of the patent claim. In interpreting the meaning of the text, the scope of protection of the patented invention shall be determined objectively and reasonably based on the general meaning of the text and considering the description and drawings of the invention while considering the detailed contents of the invention. In a case where the technical composition cannot be known from the text of the patent claim, the scope of protection of the patented invention shall be determined by supplementing other descriptions and drawings of the specification in order to determine the technical composition to express

[3] The case holding that even if a trial decision to correct the claims of a patented invention becomes final and conclusive after the production and sale of a product infringing a patent right, the legal principle presumed to be negligent in patent infringement pursuant to Article 130 of the Patent Act is maintained before and after correction, since there was no substantial change in the claims before and after the final decision to correct the claims.

[1] Articles 88 and 126 of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 42(2) and (4), and 97 of the Patent Act / [3] Articles 47(3) and 130 of the Patent Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2240 Decided December 22, 2006

Plaintiff Company (Law Firm Central, Attorneys Lee Ho-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorneys Lee Ho-cheon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 2000Da69194 Delivered on October 28, 2004

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na82487 decided May 22, 2007

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants regarding the prohibition of patent infringement and the disposal of patent infringement products is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining appeals by the Defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, the patented invention of this case (Patent No. 29468) with the name "storage and supply device for the use of a room for the use of a room" can be found to have expired after the expiration of the period of existence on January 20, 2007, which was before April 10, 2007, which was the date of the closing of argument in the court below. Thus, the plaintiff cannot assert against the defendants the prohibition of patent infringement and the disuse of patent infringement products under Article 126 of the Patent Act because it is based on the extinguished patented invention.

Nevertheless, without examining and determining the duration of the patent invention of this case, the lower court ordered the Defendants to prohibit patent infringement and discard patent infringement products. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the prohibition of patent infringement, etc., thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendants’ ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Without being alleged in the lower court, a new argument in the final appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal against the lower judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da63575 delivered on January 25, 2002).

According to the records, the defendants' assertion that "the person liable to compensate for damage caused by the patent infringement of this case is only defendant 2 who is a business registration titleholder, and defendant 1 is not a business operator, and therefore he does not have any obligation to compensate for such damage." Thus, this part of the grounds for appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal ( even if examined in light of the records, it can be known that defendant 1 was engaged in the manufacturing business of textile apparatus safety devices prior to the production of the processed products as stated in the judgment of the court below as the husband of defendant 2, and that he actually operated the continental electrical business operator. Thus, this part of the grounds for appeal cannot be

3. As to the third ground for appeal

A. The scope of protection of a patented invention shall be determined by the matters described in the scope of the patent claim. In interpreting the meaning of the text, it shall be objectively and rationally based on the general meaning of the text, and it shall be determined in consideration of the description and the drawing, etc. of the invention. In a case where the technical composition of the invention is not known from the text of the patent claim, the scope of protection of the patented invention shall be determined by the determination of the technical composition in which the text is to be expressed (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2240, Dec. 22, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the claim 1 of this case (hereinafter referred to as "claim 1 of this case") stated in paragraph 1 of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the remaining claims shall also be made in the same way, and the fact that the original surface (24) on the side of the actual withdrawal is released from the support area (19) to the removal of the actual (11) cannot be known in the detailed composition of the technical structure. Thus, in order to determine the technical composition of the invention, the detailed description and drawings of the invention are as follows: "In order to achieve the above purpose, the storage and supply equipment of the invention of this case shall be described in the 19 invention "for the purpose of accomplishing the above purpose, it shall be described in the 7th main direction of the main base for the removal of the invention at least in the vicinity of the main base, and it shall be described in the 19th floor of the urban base for the removal of the entire area without any interference with the direction of the main base for the removal of the invention."

In light of the records on the premise of the technical composition of the Claim No. 1 invention of this case as above, the products of this case and the products of this case in the holding of the court below are identical in terms of the general composition of the apparatus for storage and supply of a room for the string of the string of the new strings (storage drum, support team, actual withdrawal forest, actual absence, removal of room, Gu-dong organization (Belgium)) and internal toward the inner direction of the apparatus for storage and supply of the strings of the new strings, and the string cover with the string of the strings surface of the strings (Belgium), and the support team is located in a manner that does not interfere with the original strings and move the string to the absence of removal. Thus, the products of this case in the holding of the court below are identical in terms of the composition of the patent right of the Claim No. 1 of this case, as alleged in the ground for appeal by the Defendants.

나. 원심판결 이유를 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심이 원심 판시 실시제품들 중 ㈐, ㈑호 제품은 실이 저장 드럼의 중앙 및 하단 부위까지 감겨 있는 경우에 이 사건 특허발명의 기술구성들을 그대로 채용하여 동일한 내용의 작용효과를 얻고 있고, 작업현장의 상황에 따라 저장 드럼의 실 권취량을 극히 소량으로 하여 이 사건 특허발명과 같은 작업효과를 발생시키지 않는 경우가 있더라도, 이러한 사유로 인하여 원심 판시 실시제품들이 이 사건 특허발명과 동일한 구성을 구비하고 있다는 점에 어떠한 장애요인이 되는 것이 아니라고 판단한 것은 정당하고, 거기에 피고들이 상고이유에서 주장하는 바와 같은 특허권 침해판단에 관한 법리오해 등의 위법이 없다.

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, since the Defendants produced and sold the patented products as indicated in the judgment of the court below and infringed the Plaintiff’s patent right, the Defendants are presumed to be negligent in the act of infringement pursuant to Article 130 of the Patent Act. However, even if a trial decision to correct the claims of Paragraph (1) of this case (2002DaDa2405) becomes final and conclusive under the circumstances as indicated in the judgment of the court below after the manufacture and sale of the patented products as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the instant Claim 1 invention of this case did not have any substantial change in the claims, and therefore, the legal principle presumed to be negligent in the Defendants’ act of infringing the patent right of the instant Claim

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the Defendants are liable for damages arising from patent infringement even before the corrective decision was rendered. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of damages as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. According to the records, the defendants' assertion that "the sales from the business is included in the sales from other parts than the executor products as stated in the judgment below" includes the sales from other parts, shall not be submitted to the court of final appeal without any submission of reference materials until the court of final appeal. Thus, this part of the grounds of final appeal shall not be a legitimate

C. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, insofar as products under the patented invention of this case are domestically sold and used, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff, a patentee, is likely to suffer damage due to the manufacture and sale of the patented invention in the judgment below which infringed patent rights of this case. The judgment below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to whether to grant a patent as

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the part of the judgment below against the defendants, the part against the defendants on the prohibition of patent infringement and the disposal of patent infringement products shall be reversed, and that part shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeals by the defendants are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)