The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the scope of protection of the patented invention is determined by the matters described in the claims and it is not permitted in principle to limit or expand the scope of protection by the description or drawings of the invention. However, the interpretation of the matters described in the claims can accurately understand the technical meaning by taking into account the description, drawings, etc. of the invention. Thus, the interpretation of the matters described in the claims should be based on the general meaning of the text, but should be objectively and rationally after considering the technical significance of the invention to be expressed by the language and text

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Hu2788, May 14, 2015). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the “emergency call from an emergency contact point” in the elements of paragraph (3) of the instant patent invention (patent registration number G) of the scope of claims (patent registration number G) of the instant patent invention (patent registration number G) named as “C” is reasonable to interpret the “emergency call from an emergency contact point” as the subject of emergency contact and as a new call connection to form a new call channel or as the subject of emergency contact.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles on determining the scope of

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. In order for the invention in question to be deemed to fall under the scope of the right of the patented invention, the organic combination relationship between each element indicated in the claims of the patented invention and that element must be included in the invention in question.

On the other hand, there are changes in the composition of the patented invention claims in the challenged invention.