Judicial precedents on damage injunctions even in export actions
The plaintiff, that is, the owner of a patent for a photoconductive drum for laser printers, has produced and supplied photoconductive drums to laser printer manufacturers. Accordingly, laser printers and cartridges having these patented products manufactured by the plaintiff have been produced and sold not only domestically but also overseas. However, the defendant has worked the plaintiff's invention and produced and sold photoconductive drums in Korea and even exported them to the U.S.A., and thus infringed the patent right of the plaintiff. The infringing product of the defendant has the same technical features as the patented product of the plaintiff and is completely compatible with the patented product of the plaintiff. This resulted in direct infringing of the defendant and indirect infringement through cartridges including the patented products of the plaintiff sold on the domestic and U.S.A. markets. Therefore, even though the infringing products of the defendant were not approved by respective laser printer manufacturers and even though some of the defendant's products were exported to the U.S.A., it has been found that the plaintiff has likely suffered damages due to the defendant's actions. That is, it is considered that the plaintiff suffered damages in proportion to the gains generated by the infringing actions of the defendant, and the appellate court did not err in determining that the entire amount of the gains of the defendant was the amount of damages incurred by the plaintiff. (Summary of Decision No. 2006 Da1831 as of October 12, 2006, appeal to the Supreme Court)
Judicial precedents on damage injunctions even in export actions