Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Organic combination of claim elements in scope confirmation
Supreme Court, Feb. 25, 2021, 2019Hu11152 (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: 권리범위확인(특)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the patented invention is named “infrared heating cooker” and the invention to be confirmed is named “top-heating type far-infrared heating cooker”, does the latter fall within the scope of claim 1 of the former, given how its shaft hole and shaft protrusion correspond to those of claim 1?
Holding
A patented invention's scope is reached only where every element stated in its claim and the organic combination of those elements is wholly contained in the invention to be confirmed. Here the shaft hole and shaft protrusion of the confirmed invention correspond to those of claim 1, and the polygonal shaft and polygonal groove are no more than additional means of passing the motor's power to the rotation pan. The confirmed invention therefore falls within the scope of claim 1, and the Patent Court's contrary judgment misread the law and left the necessary examination undone.
Points at issue, verbatim
확인대상 발명의 ‘축공과 축돌기’가 특허발명의 청구범위 제1항의 ‘축공과 축돌기’에 대응되는 등 제반 사정에 비추어 확인대상 발명은 특허발명의 청구범위 제1항에 기재된 각 구성요소와 그 구성요소 간의 유기적 결합관계를 그대로 포함하고 있는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
In light of all the circumstances, including that the 'shaft hole and shaft striker' of the invention at issue correspond to the 'shaft hole and shaft striker' of paragraph (1) of the claims of the patented invention, the invention at issue nonetheless contains, as it is, each component recited in paragraph (1) of the claims of the patented invention and the organic combination relationship between those components, and yet the determination of the court below held otherwise, which constitutes misapprehension of legal principles or other error
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
특허발명의 청구범위에 기재된 각 구성요소와 그 구성요소 간의 유기적 결합관계가 확인대상 발명에 그대로 포함되어 있어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
each component recited in the claims of the patented invention and the organic combination relationship between those components must be contained in the invention at issue as they are
Factors
- 명칭을 “상부 가열식 원적외선 가열 조리기”로 하는 확인대상 발명이 명칭을 “적외선 가열 조리기”로 하는 특허발명의 권리범위에 속하는지 문제 된 사안에서
- 확인대상 발명의 ‘축공과 축돌기’가 특허발명의 청구범위 제1항의 ‘축공과 축돌기’에 대응되는 등 제반 사정에 비추어
- 확인대상 발명은 특허발명의 청구범위 제1항에 기재된 각 구성요소와 그 구성요소 간의 유기적 결합관계를 그대로 포함하고 있는데도
- 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• In a case where the question was whether the invention at issue, titled "Top-Heating Far-Infrared Heating Cooker," falls within the scope of the patented invention titled "Infrared Heating Cooker,"
• in light of all the circumstances, including that the 'shaft hole and shaft striker' of the invention at issue correspond to the 'shaft hole and shaft striker' of paragraph (1) of the claims of the patented invention,
• the invention at issue nonetheless contains, as it is, each component recited in paragraph (1) of the claims of the patented invention and the organic combination relationship between those components, and yet
• the determination of the court below held otherwise, which constitutes misapprehension of legal principles or other error
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2019. 1. 31. 선고 2017후424 판결(공2019상, 702)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Hu424 decided January 31, 2019 (Gong 2019 Sang, 702)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2019. 1. 31. 선고 2017후424 판결(공2019상, 702)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where an added feature does something more than pass the motor's power to the rotation pan, does the invention to be confirmed still wholly contain the elements of the claim and their organic combination?
A Patent Court judgment on remand in case 2018Heo8227, or a later decision stating the test under Article 97 of the Patent Act for confirming the scope of rights, would require this entry to be read again. An amendment to Article 97 or Article 135(2) of the Patent Act would do the same.
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”
Both readings record the burden as not mentioned, so the values match on this axis. The judgment is a claim-scope decision on which the burden allocation is not discussed.
확인대상 발명은 특허발명의 청구범위 제1항에 기재된 각 구성요소와 그 구성요소 간의 유기적 결합관계를 그대로 포함하고 있는데도Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where an added feature does something more than pass the motor's power to the rotation pan, does the invention to be confirmed still wholly contain the elements of the claim and their organic combination?” vs Independent “Does the examined invention also satisfy the additional limitations of dependent claims 3 and 5?”
The primary reading asks whether an added feature that does more than transmit power still leaves the claimed elements wholly contained. The independent reading asks whether the invention also meets the added limitations of dependent claims 3 and 5. These are different questions.
확인대상 발명의 ‘축공과 축돌기’가 특허발명의 청구범위 제1항의 ‘축공과 축돌기’에 대응되는 등 제반 사정에 비추어 확인대상 발명은 특허발명의 청구범위 제1항에 기재된 각 구성요소와 그 구성요소 간의 유기적 결합관계를 그대로 포함하고 있는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례Raw 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 21 June 2019 (2018Heo8227), held that the shaft hole of the invention to be confirmed was not a component corresponding to the shaft hole of the claim 1 invention, and so the confirmed invention did not include elements 1 and 2 and their organic combination and fell outside the scope of claim 1. On that basis it also held that the confirmed invention fell outside the scope of the dependent claim 3 and claim 5 inventions.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court read claim 1 by the ordinary meaning of its wording in light of the description and drawings, and found that the shaft hole and shaft protrusion of the confirmed invention correspond to those of claim 1, so that the rotation pan is rotatably installed on the base. The polygonal shaft and the polygonal groove merely pass the motor's power to the rotation pan and are additional components. Because the court below misread the law and failed to make the necessary examination, with an effect on its judgment, the Supreme Court reversed it and remanded the case, unanimously, without ruling on the remaining grounds of appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- An invention to be confirmed that does not contain a component stated in the claim itself, rather than merely differing from it in name.
- An invention whose difference changes the organic combination of the elements, rather than adding only means of passing the motor's power to the rotation pan.
- A dispute turning only on the substance of the dependent claim 3 and claim 5 inventions, which the Supreme Court did not examine in its own reasoning.
Record verification notes
Set the wording of claim 1, the description and the drawings against the shaft hole and the shaft protrusion of the invention to be confirmed, since the Court read the claim in that way. Then check whether the features present only in the confirmed invention, here the polygonal shaft and the polygonal groove, do no more than pass the motor's power to the rotation pan. The decision was given by a unanimous Bench and says nothing about the substance of claims 3 and 5, so it offers no view on how those claims would be answered.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 확인대상 발명이 특허발명의 권리범위에 속하는지 판단하는 기준 [2] 명칭을 “상부 가열식 원적외선 가열 조리기”로 하는 확인대상 발명이 명칭을 “적외선 가열 조리기”로 하는 특허발명의 권리범위에 속하는지 문제 된 사안에서, 확인대상 발명의 ‘축공과 축돌기’가 특허발명의 청구범위 제1항의 ‘축공과 축돌기’에 대응되는 등 제반 사정에 비추어 확인대상 발명은 특허발명의 청구범위 제1항에 기재된 각 구성요소와 그 구성요소 간의 유기적 결합관계를 그대로 포함하고 있는데도, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The standard for determining whether the invention at issue falls within the scope of the patented invention [2] In a case where the question was whether the invention at issue, titled "Top-Heating Far-Infrared Heating Cooker," falls within the scope of the patented invention titled "Infrared Heating Cooker," in light of all the circumstances, including that the 'shaft hole and shaft striker' of the invention at issue correspond to the 'shaft hole and shaft striker' of paragraph (1) of the claims of the patented invention, the invention at issue nonetheless contains, as it is, each component recited in paragraph (1) of the claims of the patented invention and the organic combination relationship between those components, and yet the determination of the court below held otherwise, which constitutes misapprehension of legal principles or other error
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
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] 특허법 제97조, 제135조 제2항 [2] 특허법 제97조, 제135조 제2항
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