[1] A method of determining the scope of protection of a patented invention and a method of interpreting the descriptions of the claims

[2] Requirements to deem that the product manufactured by the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit or the method of use, etc. infringe the patent right of the patented invention

[3] In a case where a plaintiff filed an appeal against a judgment of the appellate court that dismissed a number of claims selectively joined, whether the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety where the appeal against some of the above claims is deemed reasonable (affirmative)

[1] Article 97 of the Patent Act / [2] Articles 97 and 126 of the Patent Act / [3] Articles 253 and 436 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2018Hu10350 Decided February 14, 2019 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2010Da65818 Decided September 29, 201 (Gong2011Ha, 2211) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da95390 Decided January 19, 201 (Gong2012Sang, 299)

DS Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Park Sung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

BSS Global (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Masung-si et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2016Na1752 Decided April 21, 2017

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

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

1. As to whether the defendant product belongs to the scope of protection of the patented invention of this case

A. In principle, the scope of protection of a patented invention shall be determined by the descriptions of the claims and shall not be limited or extended by the description or drawings of the invention. However, the interpretation of the matters described in the claims shall be understood accurately by taking into account the description or drawings of the invention. As such, the interpretation of the matters shall be based on the general meaning of the text, and shall be objectively and rationally after considering the technical significance of the invention to be expressed in the language and text, taking into account the description or drawings of the invention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Hu10350, Feb. 14, 2019). Meanwhile, in order to make it possible for the other party to a patent infringement lawsuit to infringe the patent right of the patented invention, an organic combination relationship between each element described in the claims of the patented invention and its elements shall be included in the product subject to infringement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da65818, Sept. 29, 2011).

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following circumstances.

1) The instant patent invention (patent number omitted) is a patent invention named “air cycle coolant ELL et al.”. The Defendant’s product contains one to five elements of Claim No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1”) of the instant patent invention (hereinafter “instant Claim No. 1,” and other claims are indicated in the same manner).

2) The elements 6 and 7 of the instant Claim 1 invention are as follows: “The internal air of the spreader flows into the inner space of the main body and discharges it through the air outlet of the main body (class 6) and the external air flows into the spreader inside the diffusioner through the gap between the spreader and bees, and the ELDr is cirded (class 7) through the heat exchange with the ELDr.”

However, the text of the Claim No. 1 of this case does not limit the structure or form of the elements of “the internal air of the proliferationer flows into the inner space of the main body” and the elements of “the gap between the spreader and the bees” as to the elements of the patent invention of this case. In light of the description of the patent invention of this case, “the internal air of the spreader flows into the outer space through the outer space of the main body,” stating that “the internal air of the spreader flows into the outer space of ELDr and the bees,” and stating that “the outer air of the spreader flows into the outer space of the main body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body.

3) In response to the elements of the instant Claim No. 1’s invention 6, the Defendant’s product has a small gap between LAD D and bes, and there are air discharge tools in this body. In addition, in response to the elements of the instant Claim No. 1’s invention, the Defendant’s product has a gap between ELD and bes, and there is a gap between the spreader and bes, if the spreader’s eroke is inserted into bes through bes and combined with bes.

Defendant’s products enter the spreader inside through the gap between the spreader and bes, and the internal air in the spreader is entered into the inner space of the body through the gap between ELD plate and bes, and discharged through the air discharge outlet of the body, and thereby cooling ELD identity.

Therefore, the Defendant’s products contain 6 and 7 elements of the instant Claim 1, where “The inside air of the spreader flows into the inner space of the main body and discharges it through the air outlet of the main body, while the outside air flows into the spreader inside the diffusioner through the gaps between the spreader and bees, and thereby the air eldidr is coolings through the heat exchange with the eldidr.”

C. We examine the aforementioned circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier. The Defendant’s products contain an organic combination between each of the elements and their components described in the claims for the instant Claim No. 1, and thus, they should be deemed to fall under the scope of protection of the instant Claim No. 1.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s product did not belong to the scope of protection of the instant Claim No. 1 on the grounds that the elements of responding to the instant Claim No. 1 invention 6 and 7, on the grounds that the elements of the instant Claim No. 1 did not have the same elements as the elements of the instant Claim No. 6 and 7 in the combination process, on the grounds that the elements of the instant Claim No. 1 invention were derived from competitive cars, etc. and did not intentionally form the same effect as those of the elements 6, 7. In addition, the lower court did not separately examine whether the Defendant’s product falls under the scope of protection of the instant Claim No. 2, 4, and 8, which are subordinate inventions to the instant Claim No. 1 invention, and determined that the Defendant product did not fall under the scope of protection of the instant Claim No. 2, 4, and

2. As to whether the plaintiff's claims based on patent rights of the inventions of paragraphs 1, 2, and 8 of this case constitute abuse of rights

The lower court, based on an additional determination, partially accepted the Defendant’s defense that the Plaintiff’s claim for injunction against infringement and disuse based on the patent right of the instant patent invention constitutes an abuse of rights. In other words, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s claim based on each patent right of the instant Claim Nos. 1, 2, and 8 was an abuse of rights, on the ground that it is apparent that the patent would be invalidated by the patent invalidation trial on the ground that the nonobviousness is denied because the person with ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains could easily make an invention by prior inventions.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by either violating the Supreme Court precedents or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of inventive step, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, even if the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as seen earlier, which determined that the Defendant product did not belong to the scope of protection of the instant Claim Nos. 1, 2, and 8, the lower court’s additional determination that rejected the Plaintiff’s claim based on the patent right as an abuse of right does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, did not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the allegation in the grounds of appeal on

3. Conclusion

A. The claim of this case is selectively combined with the prohibition of infringement and the claim for destruction based on each patent right of the inventions of paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (8) of this case. The judgment of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's claim based on each patent right of the inventions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (8) of this case is justifiable as seen earlier. However, as seen earlier, the court below erred by the misapprehension of the judgment that the defendant's product did not belong to the scope of protection of the Claim 4 of this case.

B. However, in a case where a plaintiff filed an appeal against a judgment of the appellate court that dismissed multiple selective joined claims, the court of final appeal shall reverse the original judgment in its entirety when it recognizes that the final appeal against some selective claims is well-grounded (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da95390, Jan. 19, 2012).

C. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that dismissed all of the claims of this case based on the patent rights of the inventions of paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (8) of this case which are selectively combined 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

Justices Kim Jae-hyung (Presiding Justice)