Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Identity of inventions under Article 29(3) of the former Patent Act
Supreme Court, Sept. 16, 2021, 2017Hu2369 (judgment)
Case name: 등록무효(특)·등록무효(특)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a patented invention be refused where its claims, description or drawings are identical to those in the specification first attached to an earlier-filed but later-published patent application, and how is the identity of two inventions decided?
Holding
It may not. Identity under Article 29(3) of the former Patent Act is distinct from inventive step: it follows whether the two inventions have the same technical configuration, but the effect of the invention must also be taken into account. A difference of only a slight kind, going no further than adding, deleting or modifying well-known customary technology in the concrete means of solving the task and producing no new effect, means the two inventions can be said to be substantially identical; if the difference goes beyond that, the two inventions are not identical even where the difference lies within what a person skilled in the technical field could readily derive.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
특허출원한 발명이 그보다 먼저 출원된 다른 발명의 특허출원서에 최초로 첨부된 명세서에 기재된 청구범위나 발명의 설명 또는 도면의 내용과 동일성이 인정될 경우에는 먼저 출원된 발명이 나중에 공개된 경우에도 특허를 받을 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the identity is recognized between a filed invention and the content of the claims, the description of the invention, or the drawings set forth in the specification initially attached to the patent application of another invention that was filed earlier than the filed invention, the filed invention cannot be patented even if the earlier filed invention is published later.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 특허법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
구 특허법(2006. 3. 3. 법률 제7871호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제29조 제3항에서 말하는 발명의 동일성은 발명의 진보성과는 구별되는 것으로서 두 발명의 기술적 구성이 동일한지 여부에 따르되 발명의 효과도 참작해서 판단해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The identity of an invention as used in Article 29(3) of the former Patent Act (as it existed prior to its amendment by Act No. 7871 on March 3, 2006) is distinct from the non-obviousness of an invention, and is determined according to whether the technical configurations of the two inventions are identical, but the effects of the invention must also be taken into account in making that determination.
Factors
- 특허발명의 기술적 구성과 차이가 있는 점
- 특허발명 출원 당시 기술상식이거나 주지관용기술에 해당한다고 볼 자료가 없는 점
- 이는 선행발명과의 기술적 구성의 차이로 인한 새로운 효과인 점
Unofficial English translation
• The fact that it differs from the patented invention in its technical configuration
• The fact that there is no material from which it can be regarded as being common general knowledge in the art or well-known and commonly used art as of the filing date of the patented invention
• The fact that this is a new effect arising from the difference in technical configuration from the earlier invention
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2013. 2. 28. 선고 2012후726 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2012Hu726 decided February 28, 2013
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2013. 2. 28. 선고 2012후726 판결 / [2] 대법원 2011. 4. 28. 선고 2010후2179 판결(공2011상, 1074)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How substantial must the new effect produced by a difference in technical configuration be before the two inventions cease to be substantially identical?
The judgment the Patent Court hands down on remand will show how the identity test works on this ventilation supply device. Any amendment to Article 29 of the Patent Act, or a later Supreme Court decision that changes the criterion set out in Supreme Court Decision 2010Hu2179, would 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 “Existing test applied”
The primary reading states the general identity test as a requirement, while the independent reading applies that test to the pipe arrangement facts. The outcome is the same, but the form of the standard is described differently.
이는 선행발명과의 기술적 구성의 차이로 인한 새로운 효과인 점 등을 들어, 두 발명이 동일하지 않다고 한 사례.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How substantial must the new effect produced by a difference in technical configuration be before the two inventions cease to be substantially identical?” vs Independent “Would the patented pipe arrangement satisfy the separate requirement of inventive step?”
The primary asks how substantial the new effect must be to defeat substantial identity. The independent asks whether the same arrangement also satisfies inventive step, which is a separate requirement.
특허출원한 발명이 그보다 먼저 출원된 다른 발명의 특허출원서에 최초로 첨부된 명세서에 기재된 청구범위나 발명의 설명 또는 도면의 내용과 동일성이 인정될 경우에는 먼저 출원된 발명이 나중에 공개된 경우에도 특허를 받을 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 22 September 2017 (2017Heo1786, 1892), held that the difference between the patented invention and prior invention 1 was no more than a slight change a person skilled in the art would ordinarily adopt, and that the difference in effect was likewise absent, so the two inventions were substantially identical.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the difference, namely placing the supply air duct beneath the heating pipe so that the heat otherwise lost below the pipe warms the air supplied indoors, was not a mere trivial modification and produced a new effect, and that no material showed the arrangement was common general knowledge at the filing date. The court below had therefore misapprehended the law on deciding the identity of inventions under Article 29(3) of the former Patent Act, and the error affected the judgment, so the judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Patent Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- An earlier-filed invention that had already been published before the application, since the rule is stated for an invention filed first but published later.
- A question of inventive step rather than the identity of two inventions, which the Court kept distinct from Article 29(3).
- A difference going beyond a slight modification of well-known customary technology, even if a person skilled in the art could readily derive it, since the two inventions are then not identical.
Record verification notes
Set the claims, description and drawings of the specification first attached to the earlier application against the patented invention item by item, since the comparison runs to that first attached document. Then look for evidence that the differing arrangement was common general knowledge at the filing date, and identify the effect the difference produces, because the Court relied on the reduced heat loss to find the inventions not identical.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 특허출원한 발명이 그보다 먼저 출원되었으나 나중에 공개된 다른 발명의 특허출원서에 최초로 첨부된 명세서에 기재된 청구범위나 발명의 설명 또는 도면의 내용과 동일성이 인정되는 경우, 특허를 받을 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 구 특허법 제29조 제3항에서 말하는 ‘발명의 동일성’을 판단하는 기준 [3] 명칭이 ‘환기용 급기 장치’인 특허발명이 선출원된 선행발명의 명세서나 도면에 기재된 발명과 동일한지 문제 된 사안에서, 특허발명이 선행발명과 기술적 구성에 차이가 있고, 이로 인해 새로운 효과를 가지는 점 등을 들어 두 발명이 동일하지 않다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a filed invention can be patented where the identity is recognized between it and the content of the claims, the description of the invention, or the drawings set forth in the specification initially attached to the patent application of another invention that was filed earlier but published later (negative) [2] The criteria for determining the "identity of an invention" as used in Article 29(3) of the former Patent Act [3] In a case where the question was whether the patented invention titled "Ventilation Air Supply Apparatus" was identical to the invention described in the specification or drawings of a prior-filed earlier invention, a case in which the two inventions were held not to be identical on the grounds, inter alia, that the patented invention differs from the earlier invention in its technical configuration and, by reason thereof, has new effects
Summary of the holding
[1] 특허출원한 발명이 그보다 먼저 출원된 다른 발명의 특허출원서에 최초로 첨부된 명세서에 기재된 청구범위나 발명의 설명 또는 도면의 내용과 동일성이 인정될 경우에는 먼저 출원된 발명이 나중에 공개된 경우에도 특허를 받을 수 없다. [2] 구 특허법(2006. 3. 3. 법률 제7871호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제29조 제3항에서 말하는 발명의 동일성은 발명의 진보성과는 구별되는 것으로서 두 발명의 기술적 구성이 동일한지 여부에 따르되 발명의 효과도 참작해서 판단해야 한다. 두 발명의 기술적 구성에 차이가 있더라도 그 차이가 과제해결을 위한 구체적 수단에서 주지관용기술의 부가·삭제·변경 등에 지나지 않아 새로운 효과가 발생하지 않는 정도의 미세한 차이가 있을 뿐이라면 두 발명은 서로 실질적으로 동일하다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 두 발명의 기술적 구성의 차이가 위와 같은 정도를 벗어난다면 설령 그 차이가 그 발명이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 사람이 용이하게 도출할 수 있는 범위 내라고 하더라도 두 발명이 동일하다고 할 수 없다. [3] 명칭이 ‘환기용 급기 장치’인 특허발명이 선출원된 선행발명의 명세서나 도면에 기재된 발명과 동일한지 문제 된 사안에서, 특허발명은 건축물 바닥면에 설치되는 난방배관의 폐열을 열교환으로 회수·이용할 수 있도록 급기배관을 난방배관의 하면에 배치하는 것이 특징인데, 선행발명은 그 명세서나 도면에 공기배관과 난방호스의 위치 관계에 관한 설명이나 한정사항이 없어 특허발명의 기술적 구성과 차이가 있는 점, 급기배관과 난방배관을 함께 건축물 바닥에 매설할 때 난방배관의 폐열을 활용하도록 급기배관을 난방배관의 하면에 배치하는 구성이 특허발명 출원 당시 기술상식이거나 주지관용기술에 해당한다고 볼 자료가 없는 점, 특허발명은 급기배관을 난방배관의 하면에 배치함으로써 난방배관 하부로 방출되어 손실되는 열을 급기배관을 통해 실내에 공급되는 공기를 데우는 데 활용할 수 있으므로 그만큼 열 손실을 줄일 수 있는데 이는 선행발명과의 기술적 구성의 차이로 인한 새로운 효과인 점 등을 들어, 두 발명이 동일하지 않다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 특허법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Patent Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 특허법(2006. 3. 3. 법률 제7871호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제29조 제3항 [2] 구 특허법(2006. 3. 3. 법률 제7871호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제29조 제3항 [3] 구 특허법(2006. 3. 3. 법률 제7871호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제29조 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