Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Ex post inventive step and unseen materials in a cancellation suit
Supreme Court, July 25, 2019, 2018Hu12004 (judgment)
Case name: 등록정정(실)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In an action to cancel a trial decision rejecting an amendment to a registered utility model, must inventive step be judged without hindsight from the applied design's specification, and may the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office rely on materials filed only in the cancellation suit?
Holding
Inventive step is judged by asking, in the light of the prior art's scope and content, the differences from the design at issue and the level of the skilled person, whether that person could very easily derive the design from the prior art; it must not be judged afterwards on the assumption that the skilled person knew the specification's disclosure. Article 136(6) of the Patent Act, as applied by Article 33 of the Utility Model Act, is a mandatory provision, so dismissing a claim on a ground never notified through the notice inviting comments is unlawful. Where the rejection rests on the view that inventive step is destroyed by a prior design, materials filed only in the cancellation suit may ground the decision only where they supplement that prior design, prove well-known conventional technology widely known in the same field at the filing date, or supplement or support what the notice recorded.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이 경우 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 고안의 명세서에 개시되어 있는 기술을 알고 있음을 전제로 하여 사후적으로 통상의 기술자가 고안을 극히 쉽게 고안할 수 있는지를 판단해서는 안 된다.
Unofficial English translation
In such case, whether the person of ordinary skill in the art could have made the invention extremely easily shall not be determined ex post facto, on the assumption that the person knows the technology disclosed in the specification of the invention that is the subject of the inventiveness assessment.
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
선행기술의 범위와 내용, 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 고안과 선행기술의 차이 및 고안이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 사람(이하 ‘통상의 기술자’라 한다)의 기술수준 등에 비추어
Unofficial English translation
in light of the scope and content of the prior art, the difference between the invention that is the subject of the inventiveness assessment and the prior art, and the level of technology of a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter referred to as a 'person of ordinary skill in the art') in the technical field to which the invention belongs, among other things
Factors
- 선행기술의 범위와 내용
- 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 고안과 선행기술의 차이
- 고안이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 사람(이하 ‘통상의 기술자’라 한다)의 기술수준
- 정정심판청구에 대한 심사의 적정을 기하고 심사제도의 신용을 유지한다는 공익상의 요구에 기인하는 강행규정이다
Unofficial English translation
• the scope and content of the prior art
• the difference between the invention that is the subject of the inventiveness assessment and the prior art
• the level of technology of a person having ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter referred to as a 'person of ordinary skill in the art') in the technical field to which the invention belongs
• is a mandatory provision arising from public interest requirements of ensuring the propriety of the examination of a request for a trial for correction and maintaining the credibility of the examination system
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 11. 27. 선고 2013후3326 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2013Hu3326 decided November 27, 2015
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2015. 11. 27. 선고 2013후3326 판결, 대법원 2016. 11. 25. 선고 2014후2184 판결(공2017상, 47) / [2] 대법원 2007. 4. 27. 선고 2006후2660 판결(공2007상, 808), 대법원 2012. 7. 12. 선고 2011후934 판결(공2012하, 1458)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the Commissioner files a separate document amounting to new prior art, must the applicant be given another chance to file comments before that document is used at all?
The Patent Court's judgment on remand will show how the two rules work together on this record. Any amendment to Article 136(6) of the Patent Act or Article 33 of the Utility Model Act requires 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 “Where the Commissioner files a separate document amounting to new prior art, must the applicant be given another chance to file comments before that document is used at all?” vs Independent “What specific evidence is sufficient to establish that newly submitted technical material merely supplements the cited prior art rather than introduces a new ground for rejection?”
The primary reading asks whether a separate new prior art document needs a fresh chance to comment, while the independent reading asks what evidence shows that new material only supplements the cited design.
이 경우 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 고안의 명세서에 개시되어 있는 기술을 알고 있음을 전제로 하여 사후적으로 통상의 기술자가 고안을 극히 쉽게 고안할 수 있는지를 판단해서는 안 된다.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 1 November 2018 (2018Heo4584), held that the two differences from the first cited design, a back-foldable case and a shielded magnet, appeared in the third and second cited designs, so combining them made claim 1 very easy to reach. It treated a YouTube video posted before the filing date, which the Commissioner produced for the first time below, as evidence of well-known conventional technology.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below misapprehended the law on inventive step in utility models and on the scope of hearing in a cancellation action. There was no motive or suggestion to combine the cited designs, and the documents on magnetic shielding did not make it very easy to apply a shielded magnet to a phone case; the video was new prior art and could not be seen as supplementing the cited designs or as merely supplementing or supporting what the notice recorded, so it could not ground the review. It reversed the whole judgment and remanded to the Patent Court, unanimously.
Distinguishing conditions
- Materials that supplement a cited prior design or prove conventional technology widely known in the same field at the filing date, where the rejection rests on that prior art, since the Court's own exception admits them.
- A decision resting on a ground recorded in the notice, on which the applicant was given the chance to file comments, since dismissing a claim on a ground never notified through the notice inviting comments is unlawful.
- A ground for dismissal that does not rest on the inventive step being destroyed by a prior design, since the Court stated its exception for late materials only for that kind of ground.
Record verification notes
List every ground recorded in the notice inviting comments and match each ground the Commissioner advances against that list. For any material produced only in the cancellation suit, ask first whether the rejection rests on a prior design, and then whether the material supplements that design or proves conventional technology, and date it against the filing date. Then take each difference from each cited design separately and look for a motive or suggestion to combine, since the Court found none here.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 고안의 진보성이 부정되는지 판단하는 방법 및 이 경우 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 고안의 명세서에 개시되어 있는 기술을 알고 있음을 전제로 하여 사후적으로 통상의 기술자가 쉽게 고안할 수 있는지를 판단할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 정정심판이나 그 심결취소소송에서 정정의견제출 통지서를 통하여 심판청구인에게 의견서 제출 기회를 부여한 바 없는 사유를 들어 정정심판청구를 기각하는 심결을 하거나, 심결취소청구를 기각할 수 있는지 여부(소극) / 선행고안에 의하여 고안의 진보성이 부정된다는 취지로 정정심판을 기각한 경우, 특허청장이 취소소송절차에 이르러 비로소 제출한 자료들을 판단의 근거로 삼을 수 있는지 여부(한정 적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The method for assessing whether the inventiveness of an invention is denied, whether it may be determined ex post facto whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could have easily made the invention, on the assumption that the person knows the technology disclosed in the specification of the invention that is the subject of the inventiveness assessment (negative) [2] Whether, in a trial for correction or in an action for revocation of the trial decision, a trial decision may be rendered dismissing the request for a trial for correction, or a claim for revocation of the decision may be dismissed, on a ground as to which no opportunity to submit an opinion has been given to the requester of the trial through a notice of submission of written opinions on correction (negative) / Where a trial for correction is dismissed on the ground that the inventiveness of the invention is denied by a prior invention, whether materials that the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office submitted for the first time in the course of the action for revocation may be taken as the basis of the decision (limited, affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 고안의 진보성이 부정되는지를 판단하기 위해서는 선행기술의 범위와 내용, 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 고안과 선행기술의 차이 및 고안이 속하는 기술분야에서 통상의 지식을 가진 사람(이하 ‘통상의 기술자’라 한다)의 기술수준 등에 비추어 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 고안이 선행기술과 차이가 있음에도 그러한 차이를 극복하고 선행기술로부터 고안을 극히 쉽게 도출할 수 있는지를 살펴보아야 한다. 이 경우 진보성 판단의 대상이 된 고안의 명세서에 개시되어 있는 기술을 알고 있음을 전제로 하여 사후적으로 통상의 기술자가 고안을 극히 쉽게 고안할 수 있는지를 판단해서는 안 된다. [2] 실용신안법 제33조에서 준용하는 특허법 제136조 제6항은 정정심판에서 심판청구인에게 의견서 제출 기회를 부여함으로써 정정심판청구에 대한 심사의 적정을 기하고 심사제도의 신용을 유지한다는 공익상의 요구에 기인하는 강행규정이다. 따라서 정정심판이나 그 심결취소소송에서 정정의견제출 통지서를 통하여 심판청구인에게 의견서 제출 기회를 부여한 바 없는 사유를 들어 정정심판청구를 기각하는 심결을 하거나, 심결취소청구를 기각하는 것은 위법하다. 특히 정정심판을 기각하는 이유가 선행고안에 의하여 고안의 진보성이 부정된다는 취지라면 특허청장이 취소소송절차에 이르러 비로소 제출한 자료들은, 선행고안을 보충하여 출원 당시 해당 고안과 동일한 기술분야에 널리 알려진 주지관용기술을 증명하기 위한 것이거나, 정정의견제출 통지서에 기재된 선행고안의 기재를 보충 또는 뒷받침하는 것에 불과한 경우라고 인정될 때 판단의 근거로 삼을 수 있다.
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] 실용신안법 제4조 제2항 [2] 실용신안법 제33조, 특허법 제136조 제6항
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