Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Supply of an essential item to a permitted licensee is not indirect infringement
Supreme Court, Feb. 28, 2019, 2017Da290095 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(지)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a licensee permitted by the patentee of a method invention commissions a third party to make an item used only to carry out that method and then receives it, does that third party's production or transfer of the item amount to indirect infringement of the patent?
Holding
It does not. Article 127(ii) of the Patent Act treats the business-like production, transfer, lending, import or offer to transfer or lend of an item used only to carry out a patented method as infringement, but that system of indirect infringement exists only to secure the effectiveness of the patent without extending it improperly. Allowing indirect infringement here would place an improper restraint on the licensee's right and extend the patent improperly, and the patentee, who may recover a profit corresponding to the value of the patent by setting the licence fee in contemplation of supply from a third party, cannot be said to have a newly infringed exclusive interest.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 방법발명에 관한 특허권자로부터 허락을 받은 실시권자가 제3자에게 전용품의 제작을 의뢰하여 그로부터 전용품을 공급받아 방법발명을 실시하는 경우에 있어서 그러한 제3자의 전용품 생산·양도 등의 행위는 특허권의 간접침해에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, where a licensee who has obtained permission from the patentee of a patent right for a method invention commissions a third party to manufacture a dedicated article and receives the supply of the dedicated article from that third party to implement the method invention, such acts of the third party as producing and transferring the dedicated article cannot be regarded as constituting an indirect infringement of the patent right.
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
이러한 간접침해 제도는 어디까지나 특허권이 부당하게 확장되지 아니하는 범위에서 그 실효성을 확보하고자 하는 것이다.
Unofficial English translation
This indirect infringement system is intended, after all, to secure the effectiveness of the patent right within the scope in which the patent right is not unduly expanded.
Factors
- 특허권이 부당하게 확장되지 아니하는 범위에서 그 실효성을 확보하고자 하는 것이다
- 실시권자의 실시권에 부당한 제약을 가하게 되고, 특허권이 부당하게 확장되는 결과를 초래한다
- 특허권자는 실시권을 설정할 때 제3자로부터 전용품을 공급받아 방법발명을 실시할 것까지 예상하여 실시료를 책정하는 등의 방법으로 당해 특허권의 가치에 상응하는 이윤을 회수할 수 있으므로
- 실시권자가 제3자로부터 전용품을 공급받는다고 하여 특허권자의 독점적 이익이 새롭게 침해된다고 보기도 어렵다
Unofficial English translation
• it is intended to secure the effectiveness of the patent right within the scope in which the patent right is not unduly expanded
• it would unduly restrict the licensee's right of implementation and bring about the result of unduly expanding the patent right
• because the patentee, when granting the right of implementation, may recover profits commensurate with the value of the patent right, such as by setting the royalty in anticipation that the licensee would implement the method invention after receiving the supply of a dedicated article from a third party
• it is also difficult to regard the patentee's exclusive interests as being newly infringed merely because the licensee receives the supply of a dedicated article from a third party
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 7. 23. 선고 2014다42110 판결(공2015하, 1221)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2014Da42110 decided July 23, 2015 (Gong 2015 Ha, 1221)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2015. 7. 23. 선고 2014다42110 판결(공2015하, 1221)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the licence fee was set without any contemplation that the licensee would buy essential items from a third party, does the patentee's ability to recover the value of the patent still defeat a claim of indirect infringement?
A record showing that the licence fee was fixed without reference to third-party supply would reopen the reasoning on the patentee's exclusive interest. Any amendment to Article 127(ii) of the Patent Act, or a later decision departing from Supreme Court Decision 2014Da42110, would require this entry to be read again.
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 “If the licence fee was set without any contemplation that the licensee would buy essential items from a third party, does the patentee's ability to recover the value of the patent still defeat a claim of indirect infringement?” vs Independent “Would the same conclusion apply if the license expressly restricted procurement of dedicated products from third parties?”
The primary asks whether the conclusion holds if the licence fee was not set with third-party supply in mind. The independent asks whether it holds if the licence expressly restricts third-party procurement.
따라서 방법발명에 관한 특허권자로부터 허락을 받은 실시권자가 제3자에게 전용품의 제작을 의뢰하여 그로부터 전용품을 공급받아 방법발명을 실시하는 경우에 있어서 그러한 제3자의 전용품 생산·양도 등의 행위는 특허권의 간접침해에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.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 16 November 2017 (2016Na1455), held that the defendant, commissioned by Halla Corp, the ordinary licence holder of the patented method invention, to make and deliver friction stir welding machines, which are essential items for that invention, had not indirectly infringed the plaintiff's patent. It also found that the defendant had used the patented invention, to inspect and demonstrate the machine's performance, but held that such acts, which necessarily accompany the making and delivery, could not separately be regarded as infringement of the plaintiff's patent.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the law it had set out and the record, it held that the court below had not misapprehended the law on indirect infringement in finding the third party's production and delivery of the essential item not to be indirect infringement. On the inspection and demonstration, it likewise found no misapprehension of the law on patent infringement, and the Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal with its costs on the plaintiff.
Distinguishing conditions
- A third party that supplies the essential item to a recipient holding no permission from the patentee, since the rule rests on the recipient being a licensee permitted by the patentee of the method invention.
- A use of the patented method by the third party that is not necessarily attendant on the making and delivery of the item, since the Court treated only inspection and demonstration that necessarily accompanies that production and delivery as carrying no separate infringement.
- An item that is not used only to carry out the patented method, so that it is not an essential item within Article 127(ii) of the Patent Act.
Record verification notes
Establish first whether the recipient of the item in fact held a licence from the patentee of the method invention, here an ordinary licence held by Halla Corp, and on what basis the licence fee was set, since the Court relied on the patentee's ability to recover a profit corresponding to the value of the patent. Then confirm that the item is used only for that method, and separate any use of the method by the third party itself, such as inspection or demonstration, from the making and delivery alone, asking in each instance whether that use necessarily accompanies the production and delivery. Note that the Court cited Supreme Court Decision 2014Da42110 for the same limit on indirect infringement.
From the official text
Points at issue
방법의 발명에 관한 특허권자로부터 허락을 받은 실시권자가 제3자에게 그 방법의 실시에만 사용하는 물건의 제작을 의뢰한 다음 이를 공급받아 방법의 발명을 실시하는 경우, 제3자의 위 물건 생산·양도 등의 행위가 특허권의 간접침해에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the acts of a third party, such as the production and transfer of an article used only for the implementation of a method, where a licensee who has obtained permission from the patentee of a patent right for a method invention commissions a third party to manufacture such an article and then receives the supply thereof to implement the method invention, constitute an indirect infringement of the patent right (negative)
Summary of the holding
특허법 제127조 제2호는 특허가 방법의 발명인 경우 그 방법의 실시에만 사용하는 물건을 생산·양도·대여 또는 수입하거나 그 물건의 양도 또는 대여의 청약을 하는 행위를 업으로서 하는 경우에는 특허권 또는 전용실시권을 침해한 것으로 본다고 규정하고 있다. 이러한 간접침해 제도는 어디까지나 특허권이 부당하게 확장되지 아니하는 범위에서 그 실효성을 확보하고자 하는 것이다. 방법의 발명(이하 ‘방법발명’이라고 한다)에 관한 특허권자로부터 허락을 받은 실시권자가 제3자에게 그 방법의 실시에만 사용하는 물건(이하 ‘전용품’이라고 한다)의 제작을 의뢰하여 그로부터 전용품을 공급받아 방법발명을 실시하는 경우에 있어서 그러한 제3자의 전용품 생산·양도 등의 행위를 특허권의 간접침해로 인정하면, 실시권자의 실시권에 부당한 제약을 가하게 되고, 특허권이 부당하게 확장되는 결과를 초래한다. 또한, 특허권자는 실시권을 설정할 때 제3자로부터 전용품을 공급받아 방법발명을 실시할 것까지 예상하여 실시료를 책정하는 등의 방법으로 당해 특허권의 가치에 상응하는 이윤을 회수할 수 있으므로, 실시권자가 제3자로부터 전용품을 공급받는다고 하여 특허권자의 독점적 이익이 새롭게 침해된다고 보기도 어렵다. 따라서 방법발명에 관한 특허권자로부터 허락을 받은 실시권자가 제3자에게 전용품의 제작을 의뢰하여 그로부터 전용품을 공급받아 방법발명을 실시하는 경우에 있어서 그러한 제3자의 전용품 생산·양도 등의 행위는 특허권의 간접침해에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.
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 제127조 제2호
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