미국과의 비교를 통해 본 한국법원의 특허청구항 해석원칙과 그 실제

In Korea, the principles and practices of patent claim construction have been discussed fragmentarily with the scope of patent protection though it wields strong influences on the fate of patent infringement disputes. This article analyzes, focusing on the relation with specifications, the principles and practices of patent claim construction adopted by the Korean court and how they are applied to real cases from the comparative perspective with the U.S. where claim construction has been developed as independent procedure. Compared to the US court, the Korean court adopts narrow construction limited to preferred embodiments and specification when the claim language uses broad or ambiguous terms especially in the so-called means-plus-function claim, leading to the deterioration of function against restrained claim reading due to limitation to specification, and the role of prosecution history and extrinsic evidence are very weak. Though the actual application may differ case-by-case as seen in the recent claim construction between Samsung Electronics and Apple cases, the difference of claim construction principles and practices is one of main factors lying behind different outcomes. The tendency of Korean court's narrow construction of claim languages limited to the preferred embodiments and specifications contrasted with that of the U.S. originates from difference on perspectives on what is patentable invention, the claim construction procedure, and the method of evidence adoption. Therefore, the tendency will persist in the near future. This may fulfill disclosure of technology to the public as one of the goals of patent system, but it burdens patentee to mention all the possible embodiments when the courts do not show active attitude to uphold equivalent patent infringement and reduce patent protection in claims.