The method of interpreting the meaning of the language and text stated in the claim(s), and whether the same meaning should be interpreted in cases where one term is used in majority in the description of the claim(s) or invention(s) (affirmative in principle)

The scope of protection of a patented invention shall be determined by the matters indicated in the scope of the patent claim. Such interpretation shall be based on the general meaning of the text and text, and shall be objectively and reasonably determined in consideration of the description and drawing of the invention, etc. In addition, in a case where the technical composition is not known from the text and text of the claim, the scope of protection of the patented invention shall be determined by supplementing the description and drawing in order to express the technical composition. Inasmuch as the term described in the specification need to be uniformly interpreted through the entire specification, barring any special circumstance, in a case where a single term and text are used in majority of the claims or the description of the invention

Articles 42(2) and (4), and 97 of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu486 Decided September 29, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1720) Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2240 Decided December 22, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da45876 Decided October 15, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1817)

니뽄가이시 가부시키가이샤(일본애자 주식회사) (소송대리인 변호사 강경태 외 1인)

U.S. Co., Ltd. (Attorney Shin Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Patent Court Decision 2016Na1646 decided January 20, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The scope of protection of a patented invention shall be determined by the descriptions described in the scope of the patent application. The scope of protection of the patented invention shall be objectively and rationally based on the general meaning of the text and text, and shall be determined in consideration of the description and drawing, etc. In addition, in a case where the technical composition is not known from the text and text of the patent application, the scope of protection of the patented invention shall be determined by the determination of the technical composition to be expressed by supplementing other descriptions and drawings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Hu2240, Dec. 22, 2006; 2007Da45876, Oct. 15, 2009). Inasmuch as the term used in the patent specification need to be interpreted uniformly through the entire specification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu486, Sept. 29, 2005).

B. In full view of the Plaintiff’s specification and drawings of the instant patent invention (patent number omitted), the lower court determined that the term “competing” and the term “competing” of the instant patent invention should be construed as a combination that functions to maintain confidentiality, by comprehensively taking into account the Plaintiff’s specification and drawings of the instant patent invention (patent number omitted) and the patent invention claims of this case (hereinafter “instant patent invention Claim No. 1”). In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and did not adversely affect the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The lower court determined that the production, sale, etc. of the Defendant’s practice product cannot be deemed as an infringement of patent rights against the instant Claim 4 invention in comparison with the instant Claim 4 after specifying the “Defendant’s practice product” in the attached table 1 through 6 of the lower judgment’s decision. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the judgment on the Defendant’s practice product or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

The lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant’s processed product’s processed product contains a strong flow from the melting state of the dam water, or the tacking racks caused by the fluent customs phenomenon, which reads the racks between the inner side of the mix support body and the external side side of the keld racks, or that it is difficult to view that the glue atmosphere is likely to prevent the flow into the rack racksing body because it connects the racks support body and the non-metallic metal exposure body buried underground to the racks. Accordingly, the lower court determined that the patent right of the instant Claim 4 cannot be deemed to have been infringed on because it does not have any identical or equal composition with the instant Claim 4 invention.

This part of the grounds of appeal disputing the judgment of the court below as to the composition of the Defendant’s products is merely the purport of disputing the selection of evidence and the fact-finding, which are the exclusive authority of the court below, and do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal. Furthermore, even after examining the court below’s fact-finding, it cannot be deemed that there was an error by exceeding the bounds of the principle

4. 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.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)