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

[2] The case holding that the scope of protection of the patented invention is determined in consideration of the specification and drawings on the ground that the technical composition alone cannot be known by the contents of the claim

[3] The case holding that even if a trial decision to correct the claims of a patented invention becomes final and conclusive after manufacturing and selling 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 42(2) and (4), and 97 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

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

Plaintiff LLC (Law Firm Central, Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Ho-cheon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na17757 decided February 3, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

The scope of protection of a patented invention shall be determined by the matters described in the claim(s). In interpreting the meaning of the text, an objective and reasonable interpretation shall be based on the general meaning of the text and text, and shall be based on the description and drawings of the invention in consideration of the description and drawings. In a case where the technical composition is not known from the text and text of the claim(s), the scope of protection of the patented invention shall be determined by the determination of the technical composition in which the text and text would be expressed (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2240, Dec. 22, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles and records, considering that the patent claim No. 1 (Patent No. 29468) of the patented invention of this case (Patent No. 1) (Patent No. 29468), “the original surface (24) on the side of the actual withdrawal is unexploded from 19 to 11, the technical composition of the invention can not be known solely on the basis of the fact that “the original surface (24) on the side of the actual withdrawal is unexploded from 19) so that it can be continuously removed (11),” and the detailed description and drawings of the patented invention of this case (Patent No. 29) can be considered to be “exploitived from 1 to 7 mobile base (Patent No. 298),” the detailed description of the invention’s “exploitative description of the invention,” which does not necessarily contain any characteristics of “exploitative removal of the front surface,” which is an essential element to achieve the purpose of the invention in question.

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 in the holding of the court below and the Claim No. 1 invention of this case are identical in terms of the general composition of the apparatus of storage and supply (storage drum, support team, actual withdrawal forest, actual absence, removal of room, Gudong Organization (Belgium)) and the inner direction of the apparatus of storage and supply for the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the original body, and the support team is located in a manner that does not interfere with the original body, so the products in the holding of the court below are identical in that when moving the string of the string of the storage drum to the absence of removal. Thus, the products in the holding of the court below are deemed to infringe the patent right of the Claim No. 1 of this case.

We affirm the judgment below to the same purport.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts as to determining the scope of protection of a patented invention.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court, as alleged by the Defendant, determined that even if there was a dispute over the patented invention of this case between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 from around 1990, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as having known that the Plaintiff was aware of the Defendant’s patent infringement around December 24, 199, the time when the Defendant was established, and that rejection of the statute of limitations defense is justifiable

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the starting point of short-term extinctive prescription.

B. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, since the Defendant produced and sold the patented products as indicated in the judgment of the court below and infringed the Plaintiff’s patent right, the Defendant is 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 claim of the instant Claim No. 1 (2002DaDa2405) becomes final and conclusive under the circumstances as indicated in the judgment of the court below after the production and sale of the patented products as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the instant Claim No. 1 invention did not have any substantial change to the claim, and therefore, the legal principle presumed to be negligent in the Defendant’s act of infringing the patent right of the instant Claim

Therefore, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant is liable for damages arising from the patent infringement even before the corrective decision was rendered.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of damages as asserted in the grounds of appeal.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court is justifiable to have determined to the effect that, insofar as the products based on the patented invention of this case were domestically sold and used as the reasons indicated in the lower judgment, the Defendant’s production and sale of the patented invention of this case, which infringed the patent right of this case, may cause damages to the Plaintiff

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether a patent has been granted as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

D. The selection of evidence and fact-finding belong to the full authority of the fact-finding court, barring special circumstances. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is difficult for the court below to believe the contents of the evidence stated in the judgment of the court below, which held that the sales of the products to tapes, ices, etc. other than the executory products as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant sold other products than the executory products as indicated in the judgment of the court below ( even if the defendant's assertion of sales was accepted and calculated, the profits therefrom

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of damages as asserted in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)