Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Time at which a duplicate patent trial request is judged
Supreme Court, Apr. 29, 2020, 2016Hu2317 (judgment)
Case name: 등록무효(특)[중복심판청구 금지에 위반되는지의 판단 기준시점이 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When the same party files the same trial request again while an earlier trial is still pending before the Korean Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board, must the later trial's legality be judged by the state of the earlier trial at the time of the later trial decision, or at the time the later request was filed?
Holding
It is judged at the time of the later trial decision. The prohibition on duplicate trial requests is a requirement of admissibility of a trial request, just as the prohibition on duplicate actions under Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act is a matter of conditions for litigation judged at the close of oral argument; so if the earlier trial had ceased to be pending by the time of the later decision, the later request does not breach the prohibition. The en banc decision 2009Hu2234, which moved the reference point to the time of filing to Article 163's rule against repeated trial, concerned only the fixation of the preceding decision among that rule's requirements, and cannot be extended to the prohibition on duplicate trial requests.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
후심판의 심결 시를 기준으로 한 전심판의 심판계속 여부에 따라 후심판의 적법 여부를 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The lawfulness of the later adjudication must be determined according to whether the earlier adjudication was still pending as of the time of the decision in the later adjudication.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
후심판의 심결 시를 기준으로 한 전심판의 심판계속 여부에 따라 후심판의 적법 여부를 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The lawfulness of the later adjudication must be determined according to whether the earlier adjudication was still pending as of the time of the decision in the later adjudication.
Factors
- 민사소송에서 중복제소금지는 소송요건에 관한 것으로서 사실심의 변론종결 시를 기준으로 판단하여야 하므로
- 특허심판에서 중복심판청구 금지는 심판청구의 적법요건으로, 심결 시를 기준으로 전심판의 심판계속이 소멸되면 후심판은 중복심판청구 금지에 위반되지 않는다고 보아야 한다
- 중복심판청구 금지는 동일 당사자에 의한 심판청구권 남용을 방지함으로써 심결의 모순·저촉을 방지하고 심판절차의 경제를 꾀하기 위한 것이어서
- 요건 및 적용범위에 차이가 있으므로
Unofficial English translation
• In a civil action, the prohibition of duplicate suits pertains to the requirements for an action and must be determined based on the time of the close of oral argument in the fact-finding court, and therefore
• In patent adjudication, the prohibition of duplicate requests for adjudication is a requirement for the lawfulness of a request for adjudication, and if the pendency of the earlier adjudication has been extinguished as of the time of the decision, the later adjudication must be regarded as not violating the prohibition of duplicate requests for adjudication
• The prohibition of duplicate requests for adjudication is intended to prevent the abuse of the right to request adjudication by the same party, thereby preventing conflicts and collisions between decisions and seeking economy in adjudication procedures, and therefore
• there are differences in their requirements and scope of application, and therefore
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1998. 2. 27. 선고 97다45532 판결, 대법원 2017. 11. 14. 선고 2017다23066 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 97Da45532 decided February 27, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 2017Da23066 decided November 14, 2017
Decisions referred to
대법원 1998. 2. 27. 선고 97다45532 판결(공1998상, 883), 대법원 2012. 1. 19. 선고 2009후2234 전원합의체 판결(공2012상, 387), 대법원 2017. 11. 14. 선고 2017다23066 판결(공2017하, 2332), 대법원 2020. 4. 9. 선고 2018후11360 판결(공2020상, 939)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the earlier trial ceased to be pending only after the later trial decision was rendered, is the later decision still liable to be set aside for conflicting with the earlier one?
A later decision that treats the prohibition on duplicate trial requests and the rule against repeated trial under Article 163 of the Patent Act as sharing one reference point would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 154(8) of the Patent Act or Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act, on which this judgment applied the version amended by Act No. 7871 of 3 March 2006.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the earlier trial ceased to be pending only after the later trial decision was rendered, is the later decision still liable to be set aside for conflicting with the earlier one?” vs Independent “How should the identity of the two patent trial requests be determined when their asserted grounds or evidence differ?”
The primary asks whether a decision made before the earlier trial ended may be set aside for conflict, while the independent asks how to judge identity when the grounds or evidence differ.
후심판의 심결 시를 기준으로 한 전심판의 심판계속 여부에 따라 후심판의 적법 여부를 판단하여야 한다.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 30 September 2016 (2016Heo4405), cancelled the Board's decision that dismissed the later trial request. It reasoned that where the later request is filed while the earlier trial is pending but the earlier trial has become final and the overlapping state has been resolved by the time of the later decision, the request is not a duplicate and the rule against repeated trial does not apply, leaving only an unavoidable gap that follows from taking the time of filing as the reference point for res judicata; and it held that the benefit of using the filing date was outweighed by the problem of wholly barring a later request by the same party during the pendency of the earlier trial, even though the earlier might cease to be pending before the decision.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the prohibition on duplicate trial requests is a requirement of admissibility, so the legality of the later trial is judged by whether the earlier trial was still pending at the time of the later decision, and that the en banc decision 2009Hu2234 changed the reference point only for the fixation of the preceding decision, so it does not govern whether a later trial amounts to a duplicate. Grounds of appeal that it had misstated the law on res judicata or on the exhaustion of a procedural right were also rejected, and all the defendant's appeals were dismissed by the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A later trial whose earlier trial is still pending at the time of the later trial decision, since the prohibition bites on that state of affairs.
- A case governed by Article 163 of the Patent Act's rule against repeated trial, where what is at issue is the fixation of a preceding decision, since 2009Hu2234 set the reference point for that requirement at the time of filing.
- A request by a party other than the party to the earlier trial, or for a different claim, since the prohibition presupposes the same parties and the same trial request.
Record verification notes
Fix the exact date on which the earlier trial ceased to be pending, whether by withdrawal, dismissal or the finality of the decision, and compare it with the date of the later trial decision, not with the date the later request was filed. Then confirm that the parties and the trial requests are identical, since the prohibition rests on the same party and the same claim. Keep res judicata under Article 163 of the Patent Act in a separate column, because its reference point for the fixation of a preceding decision remains the time of filing under 2009Hu2234.
From the official text
Points at issue
특허심판원에 계속 중인 심판에 대하여 동일한 당사자가 동일한 심판을 다시 청구한 경우, 후심판이 중복심판청구 금지에 위반되는지 판단하는 기준 시점(=후심판의 심결 시)
Unofficial English translation
Where the same party files a request for adjudication for the same adjudication while an adjudication remains pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the point in time for determining whether the later adjudication violates the prohibition of duplicate requests for adjudication (= the time of the decision in the later adjudication)
Summary of the holding
민사소송법 제259조는 “법원에 계속되어 있는 사건에 대하여 당사자는 다시 소를 제기하지 못한다.”라고 규정하고, 2006. 3. 3. 법률 제7871호로 개정된 특허법 제154조 제8항은 심판에 관하여 민사소송법 제259조를 준용하고 있다. 이러한 관련 법령의 내용에 다음의 사정을 고려하면, 특허심판원에 계속 중인 심판(이하 ‘전심판’이라 한다)에 대하여 동일한 당사자가 동일한 심판을 다시 청구한 경우(이하 ‘후심판’이라 한다), 후심판의 심결 시를 기준으로 한 전심판의 심판계속 여부에 따라 후심판의 적법 여부를 판단하여야 한다. ① 민사소송에서 중복제소금지는 소송요건에 관한 것으로서 사실심의 변론종결 시를 기준으로 판단하여야 하므로, 전소가 후소의 변론종결 시까지 취하·각하 등에 의하여 소송계속이 소멸되면 후소는 중복제소금지에 위반되지 않는다. 마찬가지로 특허심판에서 중복심판청구 금지는 심판청구의 적법요건으로, 심결 시를 기준으로 전심판의 심판계속이 소멸되면 후심판은 중복심판청구 금지에 위반되지 않는다고 보아야 한다. ② 대법원 2012. 1. 19. 선고 2009후2234 전원합의체 판결은 ‘특허법 제163조의 일사부재리의 원칙에 따라 심판청구가 부적법하게 되는지 여부를 판단하는 기준 시점은 심판청구를 제기하던 당시로 보아야 한다’고 하였는데, 이는 선행 심결의 확정을 판단하는 기준 시점이 쟁점이 된 사안에서 특허법상 일사부재리 원칙의 대세효로 인한 제3자의 권리 제한을 최소화하기 위하여 부득이하게 일사부재리 원칙의 요건 중 선행 심결의 확정과 관련해서만 기준 시점을 심결 시에서 심판청구 시로 변경한 것이다. 중복심판청구 금지는 동일 당사자에 의한 심판청구권 남용을 방지함으로써 심결의 모순·저촉을 방지하고 심판절차의 경제를 꾀하기 위한 것이어서, 일사부재리 원칙과 일부 취지를 같이하지만 요건 및 적용범위에 차이가 있으므로, 후심판이 중복심판청구에 해당하는지 여부까지 위 전원합의체 판결을 들어 후심판 청구 시를 기준으로 판단할 것은 아니다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
특허법 제154조 제8항, 민사소송법 제259조
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