All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

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

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

A. Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Patent Act defines an invention as “an invention of a product,” “an invention of a method,” and “an invention of a method of manufacturing a product,” respectively.

If a patentee or a licensee (hereinafter referred to as “ patentee, etc.”) has lawfully transferred an article that is embodied in a patented invention of a product (hereinafter referred to as “an invention of a product”) from the patentee or the patentee, the patent right for the assigned article is likely to achieve the purpose of the patent right.

Therefore, a patent right does not extend to an act by a transferee or a subsequent purchaser (hereinafter “transferee, etc.”) regarding the use, transfer, etc. of the relevant goods.

The same shall apply to cases where a patentee, etc. has lawfully transferred goods produced by the patent method in Korea with respect to an invention of a method of manufacturing a product.

If a patentee, etc. of a method invention, including “the invention of a method of manufacturing a product” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the invention of a method”), legitimately transfers any product used for the use of the patented method in Korea, and such product is practically embodied in the process invention, the patent right of the method invention has already been achieved, and thus, the patent right is not effective against the act by the transferee, etc. of using the product.

(b) it is possible to embody the patented invention in substance through a device that can implement such a method, even the patented invention in respect of the patented invention, and the product substantially embodied in the patented invention;