Methods of determining the scope of protection of a patented invention and interpreting the claims;

Article 97 of the Patent Act

Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2377 Decided February 10, 201

KakabE Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Golf Respect Co., Ltd. (Patent Attorney Go Dong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Patent Court Decision 2019Heo1643 decided June 21, 2019

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on ground of appeal No. 1

In principle, the scope of protection of a patented invention shall be determined by the descriptions of the claims: Provided, That where the technical composition of the patented invention is unknown or the technical scope is unknown, if it is impossible to determine the technical scope, the supplement may be made by other descriptions of the specification. However, even in such a case, the interpretation of the scope of claims may not be permitted by other descriptions of the specification, nor, in a case where the technical scope is evident solely with the descriptions of the claims, the limitation of the scope of claims may not be interpreted by other descriptions of the specification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2377, Feb. 10,

The court below interpreted the part of the claim 1 (patent No. 1) of the patented invention of this case (patent No. 1 invention of this case) (hereinafter "patent No. 1 invention of this case") with the name "a virtual golf operation operation device and method providing an amendment to a non-distance reduction rate" as "a part of the control elements 1-4 of the elements of the patented invention of this case (patent No. 1 invention of this case") in accordance with topographical conditions and terms and conditions, which adjusts the distance according to the tracedal structure," "First, the court below recognized the topographical conditions that can be seen in a virtual golf course, and in this case, if the user scams in the voluntary area of the scam, the location at which the scam is seen in the scambing, with the identification of whether the scam is the scambing area or the scambing area," and interpreted it as "a non-distance adjustment

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of claims or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, etc.

2. Judgment on ground of appeal No. 2

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the nonobviousness of the instant petition for a trial against the doctrine of res judicata is not denied on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field can easily derive from the combination of prior inventions 1 and 2, etc., and on the premise that the instant petition for a trial violates the doctrine of res judicata.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the determination of inventive step, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)