Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Decision-time test for ne bis in idem in patent invalidity trials
Supreme Court, Apr. 9, 2020, 2018Hu11360 (judgment)
Case name: 등록무효(특)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When an invalidity trial request is dismissed because it rests on the same facts and evidence as an earlier final decision under Article 163 of the Patent Act, must the Patent Trial Board judge that identity as at the time of the trial decision, and may the trial petitioner raise new invalidity grounds for the first time in the cancellation action?
Holding
It must. Article 163 bars a new trial request on the same facts and evidence once a decision is final, except where that decision was itself a dismissal, and because reasons may be supplemented under Article 140(2) the identity must be tested as at the decision time using everything supplemented up to then. In the cancellation action, absent special circumstances, the court may hear grounds of illegality not decided in the decision, but the trial petitioner may not for the first time put forward a new ground of invalidity, so such a ground cannot set aside the dismissal decision and cannot be decided upon.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
특허심판원은 심판청구 후 심결 시까지 보정된 사실과 이에 대한 증거를 모두 고려하여 심결 시를 기준으로 심판청구가 선행 확정 심결과 동일한 사실·증거에 기초한 것이라서 일사부재리 원칙에 위반되는지 여부를 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board must consider all facts corrected up to the time of the decision after the filing of the request for adjudication and the evidence pertaining thereto, and, on the basis of the time of the decision, determine whether the request for adjudication is based on the same facts and evidence as a prior final and conclusive decision and thus violates the principle of ne bis in idem.
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
특허심판원은 심판청구 후 심결 시까지 보정된 사실과 이에 대한 증거를 모두 고려하여 심결 시를 기준으로 심판청구가 선행 확정 심결과 동일한 사실·증거에 기초한 것이라서 일사부재리 원칙에 위반되는지 여부를 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board must consider all facts corrected up to the time of the decision after the filing of the request for adjudication and the evidence pertaining thereto, and, on the basis of the time of the decision, determine whether the request for adjudication is based on the same facts and evidence as a prior final and conclusive decision and thus violates the principle of ne bis in idem.
Factors
- 심판청구인은 심판청구서를 제출한 후 요지를 변경할 수 없으나 청구의 이유를 보정하는 것은 허용된다(특허법 제140조 제2항 참조)
- 확정된 심결이 각하 심결인 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다
- 당사자는 심결에서 판단되지 않은 처분의 위법사유도 심결 취소소송 단계에서 주장·입증할 수 있고
- 심결 취소소송의 법원은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 제한 없이 이를 심리·판단하여 판결의 기초로 삼을 수 있다
- 이때 심판청구인이 심판절차에서 주장하지 않은 새로운 등록무효 사유를 주장하는 것은 허용되지 않는다
Unofficial English translation
• The requester of adjudication cannot amend the gist after submitting the written request for adjudication, but amending the grounds of the claim is permitted (see Article 140, paragraph (2) of the Patent Act)
• This does not apply where the final and conclusive decision is a decision of dismissal on procedural grounds
• A party may assert and prove, even at the stage of an action for revocation of a decision, grounds of unlawfulness of the disposition that were not adjudicated in the decision, and
• unless there are special circumstances, the court in an action for revocation of a decision may examine and determine such grounds without restriction and take them as the basis of the judgment
• In such case, it is not permitted for the requester of adjudication to assert new grounds for invalidation of registration that were not asserted in the adjudication proceedings
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2002. 6. 25. 선고 2000후1290 판결(공2002하, 2616), 대법원 2009. 5. 28. 선고 2007후4410 판결(공2009하, 1043), 대법원 2012. 1. 19. 선고 2009후2234 전원합의체 판결(공2012상, 387)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2000Hu1290 decided June 25, 2002 (Gong 2002 Ha, 2616), Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu4410 decided May 28, 2009 (Gong 2009 Ha, 1043), Supreme Court en banc Judgment 2009Hu2234 decided January 19, 2012 (Gong 2012 Sang, 387)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2002. 6. 25. 선고 2000후1290 판결(공2002하, 2616), 대법원 2009. 5. 28. 선고 2007후4410 판결(공2009하, 1043), 대법원 2012. 1. 19. 선고 2009후2234 전원합의체 판결(공2012상, 387)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How far may a supplement under Article 140(2) of the Patent Act go before it becomes a change of gist rather than a supplement of reasons?
A later decision on the limits of supplementation under Article 140(2), or on whether procedural grounds other than invalidity grounds may be raised in a dismissal-cancelling action, would require this entry to be read again. An amendment to Article 163 of the Patent Act, including its exception for dismissal decisions, would do the same.
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 “How far may a supplement under Article 140(2) of the Patent Act go before it becomes a change of gist rather than a supplement of reasons?” vs Independent “Would the newly asserted invalidity ground succeed if presented in a separate invalidation proceeding?”
The primary asks how far a supplement under Article 140(2) may go before it becomes a change of gist, while the independent asks whether the new ground would succeed in a separate invalidation trial.
특허심판원은 심판청구 후 심결 시까지 보정된 사실과 이에 대한 증거를 모두 고려하여 심결 시를 기준으로 심판청구가 선행 확정 심결과 동일한 사실·증거에 기초한 것이라서 일사부재리 원칙에 위반되는지 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 26 July 2018 (2018Heo1523), held that the dismissal of the invalidity trial request as contrary to ne bis in idem was proper. Relying on Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Hu2234, it held that the time point for testing ne bis in idem is the time the trial request was filed, so the new invalidity grounds, including lack of description and denial of novelty, raised for the first instance were without merit in themselves, and alternatively lacked merit, and it dismissed the plaintiff's claim.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below erred in taking the filing time as the test point, since under Article 163 the identity of facts and evidence must be judged as at the decision time, taking in everything supplemented up to then; it also held that going beyond the dismissal question to decide invalidity grounds was itself wrong. It nonetheless held the result right, because a new invalidity ground may not be raised in the cancellation action, and because neither error affected the outcome, so the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed unanimously.
Distinguishing conditions
- A request for a new trial where the prior decision was itself a dismissal decision, since Article 163 expressly excludes such decisions from the bar.
- A cancellation action in which the party argues grounds of illegality of the decision other than a new ground of invalidity, since those may be asserted and proved at that stage.
- A second trial request built on facts and evidence different from those of the final decision, so that Article 163 is not breached at all.
Record verification notes
Set the second trial request against the prior final decision fact by fact and document by document, and include everything supplemented under Article 140(2) up to the decision date, since the Court tested identity as at that date. Confirm that the prior decision has become final and was not itself a dismissal. Then separate what the plaintiff pleads as a new invalidity ground from what is a ground of illegality of the decision, because only the former is barred.
From the official text
Points at issue
특허심판원이 심판청구가 선행 확정 심결과 동일한 사실·증거에 기초한 것이어서 특허법 제163조에서 정한 ‘일사부재리 원칙’에 위반되는지를 판단하는 기준 시점(=심결 시) / 일사부재리 원칙 위반을 이유로 등록무효 심판청구를 각하한 심결에 대한 취소소송에서도 심결 시를 기준으로 동일 사실 및 증거 제출 여부를 심리하여 일사부재리 원칙 위반 여부를 판단하여야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 심판청구인이 심판절차에서 주장하지 않은 새로운 등록무효 사유를 주장하는 것이 허용되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
The point in time (i.e., the time of the decision) for determining whether the request for adjudication is based on the same facts and evidence as a prior final and conclusive decision and thus violates the 'principle of ne bis in idem' provided in Article 163 of the Patent Act / Whether, even in an action for revocation of a decision dismissing on procedural grounds a request for adjudication of invalidation of registration on the ground of violation of the principle of ne bis in idem, the court must examine, on the basis of the time of the decision, whether the same facts and evidence were submitted and determine whether the principle of ne bis in idem has been violated (affirmative), and whether, in such case, the requester of adjudication is permitted to assert new grounds for invalidation of registration that were not asserted in the adjudication proceedings (negative)
Summary of the holding
특허법 제163조는 "이 법에 따른 심판의 심결이 확정되었을 때에는 그 사건에 대해서는 누구든지 동일 사실 및 동일 증거에 의하여 다시 심판을 청구할 수 없다. 다만 확정된 심결이 각하 심결인 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다."라고 확정 심결의 일사부재리 효력을 정하고 있다. 따라서 위 규정을 위반한 심판청구는 누가 청구한 것이든 부적법하여 각하하여야 한다. 심판청구인은 심판청구서를 제출한 후 요지를 변경할 수 없으나 청구의 이유를 보정하는 것은 허용된다(특허법 제140조 제2항 참조). 따라서 특허심판원은 심판청구 후 심결 시까지 보정된 사실과 이에 대한 증거를 모두 고려하여 심결 시를 기준으로 심판청구가 선행 확정 심결과 동일한 사실·증거에 기초한 것이라서 일사부재리 원칙에 위반되는지 여부를 판단하여야 한다. 대법원 2012. 1. 19. 선고 2009후2234 전원합의체 판결은 ‘일사부재리의 원칙에 따라 심판청구가 부적법하게 되는지를 판단하는 기준 시점은 심판청구를 제기하던 당시로 보아야 한다.’고 하였는데, 이는 선행 심결의 확정을 판단하는 기준 시점이 쟁점이 된 사안에서 특허법상 일사부재리 원칙의 대세효로 제3자의 권리 제한을 최소화하기 위하여 부득이하게 선행 심결의 확정과 관련해서만 기준 시점을 심결 시에서 심판청구 시로 변경한 것이다. 심판은 특허심판원에서 진행하는 행정절차로서 심결은 행정처분에 해당한다. 그에 대한 불복 소송인 심결 취소소송은 항고소송에 해당하여 그 소송물은 심결의 실체적·절차적 위법성 여부이므로, 당사자는 심결에서 판단되지 않은 처분의 위법사유도 심결 취소소송 단계에서 주장·입증할 수 있고, 심결 취소소송의 법원은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 제한 없이 이를 심리·판단하여 판결의 기초로 삼을 수 있다. 이와 같이 본다고 해서 심급의 이익을 해친다거나 당사자에게 예측하지 못한 불의의 손해를 입히는 것이 아니다. 위에서 보았듯이 일사부재리 원칙 위반을 이유로 등록무효 심판청구를 각하한 심결에 대한 취소소송에서 심결 시를 기준으로 동일 사실과 동일 증거를 제출한 것인지를 심리하여 일사부재리 원칙 위반 여부를 판단하여야 한다. 이때 심판청구인이 심판절차에서 주장하지 않은 새로운 등록무효 사유를 주장하는 것은 허용되지 않는다. 따라서 이러한 새로운 등록무효 사유의 주장을 이유로 각하 심결을 취소할 수 없고, 새로운 등록무효 사유에 대하여 판단할 수도 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 제140조 제2항, 제163조
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