In a patent invalidation trial on a patented invention with the name "electric bed and electric bed system", where correction is requested in addition to the description in paragraphs (1) through (4) of the scope of patent claim of the patented invention, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending legal principles, although the correction is not likely to cause a new purpose and effect beyond the purpose and effect of the previous bed and it cannot be deemed that the correction goes beyond the purpose and effect of the previous bed and it does not constitute a case where the scope of patent claim is substantially expanded or modified, on the grounds that the correction does not fall under the case where the scope of patent claim of the patented invention is requested in addition to the description in paragraphs (1) through (4) of the patented invention.

Articles 133-2 and 136(3) of the Patent Act

Plaintiff (Patent Attorney Han-won, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

E. S. S. S. International

Patent Court Decision 2010Heo8207 Decided July 14, 2011

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Articles 133-2 and 136(3) of the Patent Act provide that the respondent in a trial for invalidation of a patent may file a request for correction of the specification or drawing(s) by requiring that the respondent shall not substantially expand or alter the scope of the patent. In determining whether the scope of the patent referred to in this context is a case where the claims are substantially expanded or modified, it is reasonable to compare the entire specification and drawing(s) with the entire description including the detailed description of the invention, rather than with the formal description of the claim itself. Furthermore, the correction of the scope of the patent falls under the reduction of the scope of the patent, and it is not deemed that any change exists in the purpose or effect thereof, and it reflects the contents in the detailed description and drawing(s), and thus, it does not constitute a substantial change in the scope of patent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Hu2010, Apr. 15, 2005; 2009Hu498, May 28, 2009).

2. We examine the above legal principles and records.

In the patent invalidation trial against the patented invention of this case (patent No. 856736) with the name of "electric bed and electrical bed", 2 of the decision of the court below, which is at issue as to whether the claims for correction in the patent invalidation trial against the patented invention of this case (patent No. 856736) are substantially modified, is added to "in order to increase the absorption rate of substances to be improved in the skin to bed in the skin of the person to bed" which is not described in paragraphs 1 through 4 of the patent claim for the patented invention of this case, the above multiple metal bed and the above multiple metal bed are formed in the skin of the person to bed and the above multiple metal bed shall bed by the electricity from the electrical generating device to the stike floor of the person to bed."

However, the detailed description of the invention in this case imposes a high pressure on the patient's treatment room. Through repeating such process, the patient's treatment room inevitably causes a large number of microscopies ( microscopies). At the end, the current current of the frequency in microscopics (151) can be transferred to the primary skin, and the electrical vibration in the scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sc.).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the determination of whether the claims are substantially modified, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below 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 Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)