Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Inventiveness judged without hindsight from the specification
Supreme Court, Dec. 13, 2018, 2016Hu1840 (judgment)
Case name: 등록무효(특)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When assessing the inventiveness of a patented invention, may a court judge afterwards whether a person skilled in the art could easily have made the invention, on the assumption that that person already knew the technology disclosed in the specification of the invention in question?
Holding
No. The court must first establish, on the material in the record, the scope and content of the prior art, the difference between the invention in question and that prior art, and the level of a person skilled in the art in the relevant field. It must then ask whether such a person, at the level of technology at the filing date, could easily have arrived at the invention from the prior art in spite of that difference; assessing this afterwards on the footing that the specification was already known is not permitted.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이 경우 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 발명의 명세서에 개시되어 있는 기술을 알고 있음을 전제로 사후적으로 통상의 기술자가 쉽게 발명할 수 있는지를 판단해서는 안 된다.
Unofficial English translation
In that case, one must not determine, on the premise that the person knows the technology disclosed in the specification of the invention subject to the assessment of inventiveness, whether a person having ordinary skill in the art could have easily made the invention ex post facto.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
발명의 진보성 유무를 판단할 때에는 적어도 선행기술의 범위와 내용, 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 발명과 선행기술의 차이와 발명이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 사람(이하 ‘통상의 기술자’라 한다)의 기술수준에 대하여 증거 등 기록에 나타난 자료에 기초하여 파악한 다음
Unofficial English translation
When determining whether an invention involves inventiveness, one must first ascertain at least the scope and content of the prior art, the difference between the invention subject to the assessment of inventiveness and the prior art, and the level of technology of a person having ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as a "person having ordinary skill in the art"), on the basis of materials appearing in the records, including evidence, and then
Factors
- 발명의 진보성 유무를 판단할 때에는 적어도 선행기술의 범위와 내용, 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 발명과 선행기술의 차이와 발명이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 사람(이하 ‘통상의 기술자’라 한다)의 기술수준에 대하여 증거 등 기록에 나타난 자료에 기초하여 파악한 다음
- 통상의 기술자가 특허출원 당시의 기술수준에 비추어 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 발명이 선행기술과 차이가 있는데도 그러한 차이를 극복하고 선행기술로부터 쉽게 발명할 수 있는지를 살펴보아야 한다.
- 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 발명의 명세서에 개시되어 있는 기술을 알고 있음을 전제로 사후적으로 통상의 기술자가 쉽게 발명할 수 있는지를 판단해서는 안 된다.
Unofficial English translation
• When determining whether an invention involves inventiveness, one must first ascertain at least the scope and content of the prior art, the difference between the invention subject to the assessment of inventiveness and the prior art, and the level of technology of a person having ordinary knowledge in the art to which the invention pertains (hereinafter referred to as a "person having ordinary skill in the art"), on the basis of materials appearing in the records, including evidence, and then
• examine whether a person having ordinary skill in the art could have easily made the invention from the prior art, overcoming such differences, in light of the level of technology at the time of the patent application, notwithstanding that the invention subject to the assessment of inventiveness differs from the prior art.
• One must not determine, on the premise that the person knows the technology disclosed in the specification of the invention subject to the assessment of inventiveness, whether a person having ordinary skill in the art could have easily made the invention ex post facto.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 8. 24. 선고 2006후138 판결(공2007하, 1486)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu138 decided August 24, 2007 (Gong 2007 Ha, 1486)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2007. 8. 24. 선고 2006후138 판결(공2007하, 1486), 대법원 2009. 11. 12. 선고 2007후3660 판결(공2009하, 2112), 대법원 2016. 11. 25. 선고 2014후2184 판결(공2017상, 47)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where prior art addresses the same technical task by different means, what in the record shows that a single-direction pulling structure would deprive that art of its technical meaning?
A later decision that states when the level of a person skilled in the art may be found from common general knowledge alone would change how the first step is carried out. Any amendment to Article 29(2) of the Patent Act would also require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
Both readings record the burden of proof as not addressed, so the flagged difference is nominal; the holding does not state which party must prove the inventive-step facts.
선행기술의 범위와 내용, 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 발명과 선행기술의 차이와 발명이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 사람(이하 ‘통상의 기술자’라 한다)의 기술수준에 대하여 증거 등 기록에 나타난 자료에 기초하여 파악한 다음Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where prior art addresses the same technical task by different means, what in the record shows that a single-direction pulling structure would deprive that art of its technical meaning?” vs Independent “What specific evidence would suffice to establish that a skilled person could overcome the differences without relying on hindsight?”
The primary asks what record evidence shows that a single-direction pulling structure would deprive the prior art of its meaning, while the independent asks what evidence suffices to show the skilled person could overcome the differences without hindsight.
이 경우 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 발명의 명세서에 개시되어 있는 기술을 알고 있음을 전제로 사후적으로 통상의 기술자가 쉽게 발명할 수 있는지를 판단해서는 안 된다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Patent Court, in its judgment of 11 August 2016 (2015Heo7254), held that the amended claim 1 invention, a tissue-lifting implant combining a bio-implantable thread with projections on its surface and a mesh member bound at both ends by that thread and pierced by it, was not rendered obvious by the prior art of record. It read the second feature of claim 1 as meaning that the projections on the threads at both ends of the mesh member were formed in a single direction.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error of law affecting the result. The prior art did not hold the technical idea of combining the studded thread with the mesh member that pulls tissue in a single direction, and introducing a single-direction pulling structure into prior art designed to support tissue in multiple directions would deprive that art of its technical meaning, so a person skilled in the art could not readily derive it absent a hint or motivation. The Court noted that construing the second feature as it did was inappropriate, since the passage about the one-way direction of the projections concerned the fourth amended claim, but held that the conclusion that inventiveness was not negated was correct in the end, and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal unanimously.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the record itself establishes the scope and content of the prior art, the difference, and the level of a person skilled in the art, and the obviousness assessment rests only on that material.
- Prior art that itself gives a hint or motivation to introduce a single-direction pulling structure, so that the difference from the invention can be overcome without hindsight.
- An invention whose technical task is the same as that of the prior art, since the Court relied on the different task of pulling in a single direction.
Record verification notes
Set the prior art of record against each feature of the claim as allowed, and record what the file shows about the level of a person skilled in the art at the filing date, since the Court required that to be established first from the material. Then ask whether any of that art suggests the very structure that solves the invention's task, and keep the specification itself out of that comparison, as the Court forbade reasoning from it.
From the official text
Points at issue
발명의 진보성 유무를 판단하는 방법 / 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 발명의 명세서에 개시되어 있는 기술을 알고 있음을 전제로 하여 사후적으로 통상의 기술자가 쉽게 발명할 수 있는지를 판단할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Method for determining whether an invention involves inventiveness / Whether it is possible to determine, on the premise that the person knows the technology disclosed in the specification of the invention subject to the assessment of inventiveness, whether a person having ordinary skill in the art could have easily made the invention ex post facto (negative)
Summary of the holding
발명의 진보성 유무를 판단할 때에는 적어도 선행기술의 범위와 내용, 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 발명과 선행기술의 차이와 발명이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 사람(이하 ‘통상의 기술자’라 한다)의 기술수준에 대하여 증거 등 기록에 나타난 자료에 기초하여 파악한 다음, 통상의 기술자가 특허출원 당시의 기술수준에 비추어 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 발명이 선행기술과 차이가 있는데도 그러한 차이를 극복하고 선행기술로부터 쉽게 발명할 수 있는지를 살펴보아야 한다. 이 경우 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 발명의 명세서에 개시되어 있는 기술을 알고 있음을 전제로 사후적으로 통상의 기술자가 쉽게 발명할 수 있는지를 판단해서는 안 된다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
특허법 제29조 제2항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger