[1] Whether the court may ex officio investigate whether the parties to a lawsuit seeking revocation of the trial decision are not clearly asserted and determine based on such fact (affirmative)

[2] In determining the technical composition of an invention to determine the requirement for patent, whether the scope of patent can be interpreted by other descriptions such as detailed description of the invention or drawing(s) (negative)

[1] Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 42 (2) of the Patent Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu2759 Decided May 15, 2008 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu776 Decided October 13, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1936) Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu807 Decided June 14, 2007

Ronam-A Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Park Jong-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and seven others (Patent Attorney Choi Jae-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2006Heo9586 Decided August 22, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The issue of whether a pleading is open to the public can be proved only by the protocol. According to the first pleading protocol of the court below on June 20, 2007, according to the court below's first pleading protocol, it can be acknowledged that the hearing in the above date was open to the public because the "public" was stated in the "public" column of the trial date, and the hearing was conducted in the preparatory proceedings room, not by the court, on the day of the completion of the preparatory proceedings for pleadings. Thus, the court below did not err by violating the open hearing principle guaranteed by the Constitution and law. The argument about this point is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the plaintiff submitted a number of documentary evidence as evidence to determine the inventive step of the patented invention of this case (patent No. 368432, Nov. 23, 2006, etc.). Thus, the court's request for verification of the plaintiff's written evidence is merely the discretionary matter of the court, and it is merely the fact that the court's decision is unnecessary, and it is not erroneous that the court below did not adopt it on the premise that it is unnecessary.

In addition, in a lawsuit to revoke a trial decision, which is a kind of administrative litigation, if the court deems it necessary, the court may ex officio investigate and determine it based on the data indicated in the records (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu2759, May 15, 2008). Even if the Defendants did not assert the comparable invention 1 as one of the prior art in the judgment below, it cannot be said that the court erred in determining the inventive step of the patent claim 1 and paragraph (2) of the patented invention of this case (hereinafter “instant Claim 1 and paragraph (2)”) based on the comparable invention 1 as indicated in the records.

Therefore, the argument on this point is without merit.

3. As to the third and fourth points

The technical composition of an invention to determine the requirements for patent shall be determined on the basis of the description of the claims, except in extenuating circumstances, and it is not allowed to limit the scope of claims pursuant to other description, such as the detailed description or drawings of the invention (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Hu776, Oct. 13, 2006; 2007Hu807, Jun. 14, 2007, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, the elements of the judgment of the court below among the claims No. 1 inventions of this case, which can be clearly understood only by the description itself, shall not be interpreted as limiting the technical composition of the claim No. 2 of this case, and the composition forming the number and number of pages, which is limited in the invention No. 2 of this case, which is its subordinate claim, to form the number and number of pages, and the composition which is limited in the invention No. 2 of this case. 2 of this case, which can be understood clearly by the claim No. 1 of this case.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the technical composition of the invention Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was confirmed by the description of the claim Nos. 1 and 6 of this case, and that the invention Nos. 1 and 2 of this case can easily be made by a person with ordinary knowledge in this technology from the comparable invention Nos. 1 and 6 of this case based on the reasons indicated in the judgment below. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there

On the other hand, while the fact that the patented invention has been commercially successful, in this case, where the technical review based on the specification of the patented invention of this case does not recognize that the invention of this case was more advanced than prior art, as seen above, the inventive step of the patented invention of this case cannot be recognized solely on the fact that the plaintiff had commercially successful success through the working of the patented invention of this case. Thus, even though the court below did not decide on it, the court below did not err in omitting the determination as claimed 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)