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. Article 127 Subparag. 2 of the Patent Act provides that, in cases of an invention of a process, a patent shall be deemed infringement of the patent right or exclusive license where the patent is engaged in manufacturing, transferring, leasing, importing, or offering for assigning or leasing articles used exclusively for working the process.

These indirect infringement systems aim to secure effectiveness to the extent that patent rights do not unfairly expand.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da42110, Jul. 23, 2015). In cases where a licensee who has obtained permission from a patentee with respect to an invention of a method (hereinafter referred to as “method invention”) entrusts a third party with the manufacture of an article used exclusively for working such a method (hereinafter referred to as “exclusive product”), and conducts a method invention by being supplied with exclusive products, if such third party’s act of producing, transferring, etc. the exclusive product is deemed an indirect infringement, the licensee would be subject to unfair restriction on the licensee’s license, and the patent right unfairly expands.

In addition, when a patentee establishes a license, he/she may recover profits equivalent to the value of the relevant patent by determining a license fee, such as by acquiring an exclusive product from a third party and expected to implement a method invention. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the exclusive profit of the patentee is newly infringed on the ground that the licensee is supplied with an exclusive product from a third party.

Therefore, in cases where a licensee who has obtained permission from a patentee with respect to a method invention is supplied with exclusive products by entrusting a third party with the production of exclusive products, and conducts a method invention, such act of the third party's production, transfer, etc. of exclusive products cannot be deemed an indirect infringement of a patent right.

B. The court below held that the defendant is a method inventor.