Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Judicial admission of a product's components and clarity of claim terms
Supreme Court, Jan. 27, 2022, 2019Da277751 (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: 특허권침해금지청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In a patent infringement action, may a defendant's statement that its product possesses a particular component of the patented invention count as a judicial admission, and may the exercise of a patent whose claim uses unclear terms be refused as an abuse of right?
Holding
It may. The composition of the accused product is a principal fact underlying the infringement finding and may be the subject of a judicial admission; whether a statement is one of fact or a legal evaluation is decided on the concrete content and circumstances of the statement and the progress of the oral argument, and once an admission stands the court may not find contrary facts by evidence unless it is lawfully revoked. A term that expresses the invention unclearly is in principle not allowed in a claim, yet a claim term is clear where a person with ordinary knowledge in the field can ascertain the patented invention from it in the light of the description, the drawings and the common general knowledge at the filing date.
Points at issue, verbatim
특허침해소송에서 상대방이 제조하는 제품이 어떤 구성요소를 가지고 있는지가 재판상 자백의 대상이 될 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 그 판단 기준
Unofficial English translation
Whether, in a patent infringement action, the question of what components a product manufactured by the opposing party possesses may be the subject of a judicial admission (affirmative) and the criteria for that determination
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 원심판결 별지 목록 제1항 기재 물건에 관한 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 특허법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the claim as to the objects set forth in Item 1 of the appended list of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Patent Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
또한 특허권침해소송의 상대방이 제조하는 제품 또는 사용하는 방법이 특허발명의 특허권을 침해한다고 하기 위해서는 특허발명의 청구범위에 기재된 각 구성요소와 그 구성요소 간의 유기적 결합관계가 침해대상제품 등에 그대로 포함되어 있어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
Furthermore, for a product manufactured or a method used by the opposing party in a patent infringement action to be said to infringe the patent right of the patented invention, each component stated in the claims of the patented invention and the organic combinational relationship between those components must be included as they are in the accused product and the like.
Factors
- 특허침해소송에서 상대방이 제조하는 제품이 어떤 구성요소를 가지고 있는지가 재판상 자백의 대상이 될 수 있는지 여부(적극)
- 재판상 자백이 성립한 경우, 법원이 이에 배치되는 사실을 증거에 의하여 인정할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
- 특허출원 시 청구항에 발명의 구성을 불명료하게 표현하는 용어를 기재할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) 및 발명이 명확하게 적혀 있는지 판단하는 방법
- 특허발명의 보호범위를 정하는 기준인 ‘청구범위에 적혀 있는 사항’을 해석하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
• Whether, in a patent infringement action, the question of what components a product manufactured by the opposing party possesses may be the subject of a judicial admission (affirmative)
• Where a judicial admission has been made, whether the court may, on the basis of evidence, find facts that conflict with it (negative)
• Whether, upon filing a patent application, a term that unclearly expresses the configuration of the invention may be stated in the claims (negative in principle) and the method of determining whether the invention is clearly described
• The method of interpreting "matters stated in the claims," which is the standard for determining the scope of protection of a patented invention
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2006. 8. 24. 선고 2004후905 판결(공2006하, 1636)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2004Hu905 decided August 24, 2006 (Gong 2006 Ha, 1636)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2006. 4. 13. 선고 2003다70331 판결 / [2] 대법원 2006. 8. 24. 선고 2004후905 판결(공2006하, 1636), 대법원 2018. 10. 4. 선고 2016다41869 판결(공2018하, 2311) / [3] 대법원 2006. 11. 24. 선고 2003후2072 판결(공2007상, 72), 대법원 2014. 7. 24. 선고 2012후1613 판결, 대법원 2017. 4. 7. 선고 2014후1563 판결(공2017상, 1037) / [4] 대법원 2011. 9. 29. 선고 2010다65818 판결(공2011하, 2211), 대법원 2012. 12. 27. 선고 2011후3230 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
After remand, what evidence beyond an appraisal conducted for a different patent claim is needed to find that a judicial admission was made in error?
The remand judgment of the Patent Court on the item in List No. 1 will show how the admission and its asserted revocation are resolved. A later decision changing the way claim terms are construed or the way clarity is assessed under Article 42(4)(ii) of the Patent Act, or an amendment to Articles 42 and 97 of the Patent Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 6 September 2019 (2018Na1381, 1398), dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims. It held that the defendant's statement that its product possessed component B-3 was a legal evaluation of identity or equivalence rather than a statement of fact, so no judicial admission arose; alternatively, the first-instance appraisal showed the statement to be contrary to truth, so it was lawfully revoked. It further held that the terms for average film thickness and the outermost part in claim 1 of Patent 486 lacked clarity, making the exercise of that patent an abuse of right, and on the 395 patent it construed the terms for polycrystallinity and the interface between crystals and found no infringement.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the defendant's statement was one of fact on possessing component B-3, so a judicial admission was established, and that the appraisal had measured only the infringement of a different patent, so a difference in thickness variation alone could not show the admission was contrary to truth; the court below had failed to examine what it needed to. It held that the two claim terms were clear and measurable by an ordinarily skilled person, so Article 42(4)(ii) of the Patent Act was satisfied. Finding no error in the dismissal as a duplicate action or in the claim construction on the 395 patent, it reversed the part of the judgment on the item in List No. 1 and remanded it to the Patent Court, dismissing the rest of the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A statement that the corresponding component of the accused product is identical or equivalent to a component of the patented invention, since that is a legal evaluation rather than a statement of fact.
- A judicial admission that has been lawfully revoked, since the court is bound by an admission only so long as it has not been lawfully revoked.
- A claim term whose technical meaning a person with ordinary knowledge in the field cannot ascertain from the description, the drawings and the common general knowledge at the filing date, so that the claim lacks clarity.
Record verification notes
Set the party's words against the concrete content and circumstances of the statement and the course of the oral argument, since the line between fact and legal evaluation turns on them. Check whether the appraisal relied on for revocation actually measured the item the admission concerned. Read the claim with the description and drawings, and note that the two claims here were pleaded in the alternative, which shaped the scope of the reversal.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 당사자 및 소송물이 동일한 소가 시간을 달리하여 제기된 경우, 나중에 제기된 소가 적법한지 여부(소극) [2] 특허침해소송에서 상대방이 제조하는 제품이 어떤 구성요소를 가지고 있는지가 재판상 자백의 대상이 될 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 그 판단 기준 / 재판상 자백이 성립한 경우, 법원이 이에 배치되는 사실을 증거에 의하여 인정할 수 있는지 여부(소극) [3] 특허출원 시 청구항에 발명의 구성을 불명료하게 표현하는 용어를 기재할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) 및 발명이 명확하게 적혀 있는지 판단하는 방법 [4] 특허발명의 보호범위를 정하는 기준인 ‘청구범위에 적혀 있는 사항’을 해석하는 방법 및 특허권침해소송의 상대방이 제조하는 제품 또는 사용하는 방법이 특허발명의 특허권을 침해한다고 인정하기 위한 요건
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the latter action is lawful where actions with identical parties and subject matter of suit are filed at different times (negative) [2] Whether, in a patent infringement action, the question of what components a product manufactured by the opposing party possesses may be the subject of a judicial admission (affirmative) and the criteria for that determination / Where a judicial admission has been made, whether the court may, on the basis of evidence, find facts that conflict with it (negative) [3] Whether, upon filing a patent application, a term that unclearly expresses the configuration of the invention may be stated in the claims (negative in principle) and the method of determining whether the invention is clearly described [4] The method of interpreting "matters stated in the claims," which is the standard for determining the scope of protection of a patented invention, and the requirements for finding that a product manufactured or a method used by the opposing party in a patent infringement action infringes the patent right of the patented invention
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
원심판결 중 원심판결 별지 목록 제1항 기재 물건에 관한 청구 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 특허법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning the claim as to the objects set forth in Item 1 of the appended list of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this portion of the case is remanded to the Patent Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제259조 [2] 특허법 제97조, 제126조, 민사소송법 제288조 [3] 특허법 제42조 제4항 제2호, 제97조 [4] 특허법 제97조, 제126조
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