Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Claim terms read uniformly across the specification
Supreme Court, July 10, 2019, 2017Da209761 (judgment)
Case name: 특허권침해금지청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
How should the meaning of the language in the patent claims be construed when the concrete technical configuration is not apparent from it, and must a term used repeatedly in the claims or the description be given the same meaning throughout the specification?
Holding
The scope of a patented invention is fixed by what is stated in the claims, and the language there is construed objectively and rationally, grounded in its ordinary meaning but taking the description and drawings into account. Where the claims alone do not disclose the concrete technical configuration, other statements in the specification and the drawings supplement the language, and the technical configuration it was meant to express is thereby fixed. Since a term in the specification must be read consistently throughout, one term used repeatedly in the claims or the description carries the same meaning unless special circumstances are shown.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
특허의 명세서에 기재된 용어는 명세서 전체를 통하여 통일되게 해석할 필요가 있으므로, 하나의 용어가 청구범위나 발명의 설명에 다수 사용된 경우 특별한 사정이 없는 한 동일한 의미로 해석해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Because the terms stated in the specification of a patent need to be interpreted uniformly throughout the entire specification, where a single term is used a number of times in the claims or the detailed description, it must, absent special circumstances, be interpreted as having the same meaning.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
거기에 기재된 문언의 의미내용을 해석할 때 문언의 일반적인 의미내용을 기초로 하면서도 발명의 설명 및 도면 등을 참작하여 객관적·합리적으로 하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
When interpreting the meaning of the wording recited therein, the interpretation must be based on the ordinary meaning of the wording while taking into account the detailed description, the drawings, and the like, and must be made objectively and reasonably.
Factors
- 특허발명의 보호범위는 특허청구범위에 기재된 사항에 의하여 정하여야 한다.
- 문언의 일반적인 의미내용을 기초로 하면서도 발명의 설명 및 도면 등을 참작하여 객관적·합리적으로 하여야 한다.
- 특허청구범위에 기재된 문언으로부터 기술적 구성의 구체적 내용을 알 수 없는 경우에는
- 명세서의 다른 기재 및 도면을 보충하여 그 문언이 표현하고자 하는 기술적 구성을 확정하여 특허발명의 보호범위를 정하여야 한다.
- 하나의 용어가 청구범위나 발명의 설명에 다수 사용된 경우 특별한 사정이 없는 한 동일한 의미로 해석해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
• The scope of protection of a patented invention must be determined by the matters stated in the claims.
• The interpretation must be based on the ordinary meaning of the wording, while taking into account the detailed description, the drawings, and the like, and must be made objectively and reasonably.
• Where the specific content of the technical structure cannot be ascertained from the wording stated in the claims,
• the technical structure that such wording is intended to express must be ascertained by supplementing the same with other statements in the specification and the drawings, and the scope of protection of the patented invention must be determined accordingly.
• Where a single term is used a number of times in the claims or the detailed description, it must, absent special circumstances, be interpreted as having the same meaning.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2005. 9. 29. 선고 2004후486 판결(공2005하, 1720), 대법원 2006. 12. 22. 선고 2006후2240 판결, 대법원 2009. 10. 15. 선고 2007다45876 판결(공2009하, 1817)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu486 decided September 29, 2005 (Gong 2005 Ha, 1720); Supreme Court Decision 2006Hu2240 decided December 22, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da45876 decided October 15, 2009 (Gong 2009 Ha, 1817)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2005. 9. 29. 선고 2004후486 판결(공2005하, 1720), 대법원 2006. 12. 22. 선고 2006후2240 판결, 대법원 2009. 10. 15. 선고 2007다45876 판결(공2009하, 1817)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances allow one term used repeatedly in the specification to be given different meanings?
A later decision that identifies what counts as special circumstances, or that reads a claim term more narrowly than the specification as a whole, would require this entry to be read again. An amendment to Article 42(2) or (4) of the Patent Act would likewise change the basis of the claim construction.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 20 January 2017 (2016Na1646), read the specification and drawings of the plaintiff's patent invention, entitled 'A Ceramic Joint Structure and a Method of Manufacturing the Same', as a whole and construed the term 'joint' in claim 1 and in claim 4 as a joint that performs the function of maintaining airtightness. It then identified products 1 to 6 listed in the first schedule as the defendant's worked products taken together, and held that their production and sale could not be seen as an infringement of the claim 4 invention; it also found that the worked products did not have the same or an equivalent configuration as that invention.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. On claim construction, it held that the reasoning rested on the correct rule, so the appeal had not misread the law on interpreting patent claims in any way affecting the judgment. On infringement, it held that the court below had neither omitted an assessment of the worked products nor failed to carry out necessary deliberation, and that the challenge to its findings on the configuration of the worked products merely contested the evaluation of evidence and fact-finding, which belongs exclusively to the fact-finding court, with no breach of the rules of logic or experience. It dismissed the plaintiff's appeal with the concurrence of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which special circumstances show that one term used repeatedly in the specification carries different meanings, since the uniform reading applies unless such circumstances are shown.
- A claim whose language itself discloses the concrete technical configuration, so that the other statements in the specification and the drawings need not supplement it.
- A challenge directed only at which evidence to accept and how facts are found, since the Court treated that as exclusively for the fact-finding court.
Record verification notes
Set out every place the disputed term appears in the claims, the description and the drawings, and ask whether the specification as a whole treats it consistently, before arguing that the term bears a narrower meaning in one claim. Then keep the two stages apart: fix the scope of the claim 4 invention first, and compare the worked product against that scope second, since the Court reviewed the construction and the comparison as separate grounds of appeal.
From the official text
Points at issue
특허청구범위에 기재된 문언의 의미내용을 해석하는 방법 및 특허의 명세서에서 하나의 용어가 청구범위나 발명의 설명에 다수 사용된 경우, 동일한 의미로 해석해야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
Method of interpreting the meaning of the wording stated in the claims of a patent, and whether, where a single term is used a number of times in the claims or the detailed description of a patent, it must be interpreted as having the same meaning (affirmative in principle)
Summary of the holding
특허발명의 보호범위는 특허청구범위에 기재된 사항에 의하여 정하여야 한다. 거기에 기재된 문언의 의미내용을 해석할 때 문언의 일반적인 의미내용을 기초로 하면서도 발명의 설명 및 도면 등을 참작하여 객관적·합리적으로 하여야 한다. 그리고 특허청구범위에 기재된 문언으로부터 기술적 구성의 구체적 내용을 알 수 없는 경우에는 명세서의 다른 기재 및 도면을 보충하여 그 문언이 표현하고자 하는 기술적 구성을 확정하여 특허발명의 보호범위를 정하여야 한다. 특허의 명세서에 기재된 용어는 명세서 전체를 통하여 통일되게 해석할 필요가 있으므로, 하나의 용어가 청구범위나 발명의 설명에 다수 사용된 경우 특별한 사정이 없는 한 동일한 의미로 해석해야 한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
특허법 제42조 제2항, 제4항, 제97조
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