Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Corrected specification finalised after close of argument
Supreme Court, Jan. 14, 2021, 2017Da231829 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 특허권침해금지등
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a patentee filed a correction claim in an invalidation trial and the decision on it became final after the close of argument in a patent infringement civil case, does the judgment below based on the pre-correction specification have a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)(viii) of the Civil Procedure Act, and how are the scope of protection and the disclosure requirement of former Article 42(3) of the Patent Act to be read?
Holding
No. Even where the decision on the correction claim becomes final after the close of argument, the judgment based on the pre-correction specification has no ground for retrial under Article 451(1)(viii) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Supreme Court reviews the court below's finding on the scope of protection against the pre-correction specification. Where the claim itself makes the technical scope clear, the other parts of the description may not be used to limit it. The disclosure requirement of former Article 42(3) of the Patent Act is met where a person skilled in the art can understand and reproduce the invention from the description alone, without excessive experimentation or special knowledge, at the level of technology at the filing date.
Points at issue, verbatim
상고심은 정정 전 명세서 등을 기초로 원심판결의 권리범위 속부 등에 대한 판단의 법리오해 여부를 판단하여야 한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case holding that the court of final appeal must determine whether the judgment of the court below, including its determination as to whether it falls within the scope of the right, involved a misapprehension of legal principles, on the basis of the specification, etc. before the correction
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
위 조항에서 요구하는 명세서 기재의 정도는 통상의 기술자가 출원 시의 기술 수준으로 보아 과도한 실험이나 특수한 지식을 부가하지 않고서도 명세서의 기재에 의하여 해당 발명을 정확하게 이해할 수 있고 동시에 재현할 수 있는 정도를 말한다
Unofficial English translation
The degree of description in the specification required by the said provision means such a degree that a person of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the level of technology at the time of filing, can accurately understand and at the same time reproduce the invention from the description in the specification without undue experimentation or the addition of special knowledge
Factors
- 정정 전 명세서 등으로 판단한 원심판결에 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제8호의 재심사유가 있는지 여부(소극)
- 특허발명의 보호범위를 확정하는 방법 및 청구범위의 기재만으로 기술적 범위가 명백한 경우, 명세서의 다른 기재에 의하여 청구범위의 기재를 제한 해석할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
- 구 특허법 제42조 제3항에서 요구하는 명세서 기재의 정도
Unofficial English translation
• Whether the judgment of the court below, which decided the matter on the basis of the specification, etc. before the correction, is subject to a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1), subparagraph 8 of the Civil Procedure Act (negative)
• Whether, where the method for determining the scope of protection of a patented invention is applied and the technical scope is clear from the description of the claims alone, the description of the claims may be given a restrictive interpretation based on other descriptions in the specification (negative)
• The degree of description in the specification required by Article 42 (3) of the former Patent Act
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2020. 1. 22. 선고 2016후2522 전원합의체 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court en banc judgment 2016Hu2522 decided January 22, 2020
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2020. 1. 22. 선고 2016후2522 전원합의체 판결(공2020상, 483) / [3] 대법원 2011. 2. 10. 선고 2010후2377 판결 / [4] 대법원 2006. 11. 24. 선고 2003후2072 판결(공2007상, 72), 대법원 2011. 10. 13. 선고 2010후2582 판결(공2011하, 2381)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Do acts of infringement committed after the correction decision became final fall to be judged against the corrected specification even though the judgment below stands on the pre-correction one?
A later decision revising the effect of a finalised correction decision on the scope of protection would require this entry to be read again, as would any amendment to the disclosure requirement in former Article 42(3) of the Patent Act. The record would also need review if the correction decision in this invalidation trial changed the wording of claims 1 to 5.
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 “Do acts of infringement committed after the correction decision became final fall to be judged against the corrected specification even though the judgment below stands on the pre-correction one?” vs Independent “How should a correction finalized before the close of fact-finding proceedings affect the adjudication of infringement?”
The primary asks about infringing acts after the correction became final, while the independent reading asks about a correction finalized before the close of fact-finding. The timing differs, so the gaps are different.
상고심은 정정 전 명세서 등을 기초로 원심판결의 권리범위 속부 등에 대한 판단의 법리오해 여부를 판단하여야 한다고 한 사례Raw 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 28 April 2017 (2016Na1424), held that, unless the description limited the relative position of the electromagnetic field generator to the shielding wall, the generator could not be read as confined to a position spatially in front of that wall, and that what appeared in the drawings was only one embodiment and could not limit the claim. On that reading it found the defendants' accused products to fall within the scope of claims 1 to 5, and found no invalidity for insufficient disclosure under former Article 42(3) of the Patent Act or for lack of inventive step over prior art 6 or 7 or the like.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. On the retrial point it held, following the en banc decision of 22 January 2020 (2016Hu2522), that a finalised correction decision does not create a ground for retrial, so the review proceeds on the pre-correction specification. It accepted the claim construction, the finding that the description met the disclosure requirement and that inventive step was not denied, noting only that parts of the reasons were inaptly put, and dismissed all the appeals.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the decision on the correction claim became final before the close of argument in the first instance, so the corrected specification was before the court below when it decided.
- A claim whose technical scope cannot be determined from its wording alone, since the other parts of the description may then supplement it.
- A specification from which a person skilled in the art cannot understand and reproduce the invention without excessive experimentation or special knowledge at the filing date.
Record verification notes
Fix the dates first: the close of argument below, the date the correction decision became final, and the filing date of the application, since the disclosure test is judged at the filing date. Then set the claim language against the description and the drawings, and ask whether the claims alone already state the technical scope. Keep the inventive step analysis separate, since it turns on prior art 6 and 7 or the like rather than on the correction.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 특허권자가 특허무효심판절차 내에서 정정청구를 하여 특허권 침해를 원인으로 하는 민사소송의 사실심 변론종결 이후에 정정청구에 대한 심결이 확정된 경우, 정정 전 명세서 등으로 판단한 원심판결에 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제8호의 재심사유가 있는지 여부(소극) [2] “셀프 플라즈마 챔버의 오염 방지 장치 및 방법”이라는 이름의 특허발명의 특허권자인 갑 주식회사가 을 주식회사 등을 상대로 특허권침해금지 등을 구하는 소를 제기하였는데, 원심 변론종결 후 위 특허발명에 대한 특허무효심판절차에서 정정청구에 대한 심결이 확정된 사안에서, 상고심은 정정 전 명세서 등을 기초로 원심판결의 권리범위 속부 등에 대한 판단의 법리오해 여부를 판단하여야 한다고 한 사례 [3] 특허발명의 보호범위를 확정하는 방법 및 청구범위의 기재만으로 기술적 범위가 명백한 경우, 명세서의 다른 기재에 의하여 청구범위의 기재를 제한 해석할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [4] 구 특허법 제42조 제3항에서 요구하는 명세서 기재의 정도
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the judgment of the court below, which decided the matter on the basis of the specification, etc. before the correction, is subject to a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1), subparagraph 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, where the patent holder filed a request for correction in patent invalidation trial proceedings and the trial decision on the request for correction became final and conclusive after the conclusion of oral arguments on the facts in the civil action on the ground of infringement of a patent right (negative) [2] A case holding that, where A Corporation, the patent holder of a patented invention named "Apparatus for and Method of Preventing Contamination of a Self Plasma Chamber," filed an action against B Corporation and others seeking an injunction against infringement of a patent right, etc., and, after the conclusion of oral arguments in the court below, the trial decision on the request for correction became final and conclusive in the patent invalidation trial proceedings for the said patented invention, the court of final appeal must determine whether the judgment of the court below, including its determination as to whether it falls within the scope of the right, involved a misapprehension of legal principles, on the basis of the specification, etc. before the correction [3] Whether, where the method for determining the scope of protection of a patented invention is applied and the technical scope is clear from the description of the claims alone, the description of the claims may be given a restrictive interpretation based on other descriptions in the specification (negative) [4] The degree of description in the specification required by Article 42 (3) of the former Patent Act
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제8호, 특허법 제133조의2 [2] 민사소송법 제451조 제1항 제8호, 특허법 제126조, 제128조 제1항, 제133조의2 [3] 특허법 제97조 [4] 구 특허법(2009. 1. 30. 법률 제9381호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제42조 제3항
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