1. Claim construction should, though, rely on the way of how a linking word is expressed in a claim to determine the scope of a patent right. And, the recited content of a claim which is the combination of elements, components, or steps, should have a linking word set between a preamble and body. However, a linking word is used to link a preamble and body. A preamble part should describe things related to the subject matter of the patent application or necessary technical features co-owned by prior arts (a claim of a two-part form). A body part is to describe relationships among technical features. It is not to say that the terms used in a preamble or body as to describe relationships among technical features also can be called a linking word and used for determine a patent scope.

2. Words and terms of a patent scope will follow the evolution of technology so as to cover different scopes at different time frames. But, to make the public trust a publicly disclosed patent scope, the words and terms of the patent scope should be limited to their objective meanings that an ordinary skilled person in the art can understand when the patent application was filed.

3. An obligator of damages, who benefits from the infringement that causes damages to the victim, should still follow the regulations of unjust enrichment to return to the victim the received benefits after the expiration of a right to sue. That is defined in Article 197, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code. And, benefits based on no legal reason so as to cause damages to others should be returned. That is also defined in Article 179 of the same act. And, infringement is a system where the damages imposed on the victim is compensated by the infringer so as to recover her original property status. Unjust enrichment is a system where a beneficiary is deprived of his benefits that will be returned to the victim. The direct purposes of those two systems are different, and the claim scopes are not necessarily the same. For obligations based on unjust enrichment, there is no concept of joint unjust enrichment, but there are separate monetary obligations. So, if there are many beneficiaries, each beneficiary should be responsible for his return obligation of the amount of his benefits. The damages imposed on the victim are not counted as a standard.

claim construction, linking word, unjust enrichment