Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Article invention identified without regard to its manufacturing method
Supreme Court, Jan. 14, 2022, 2019Hu11541 (judgment)
Case name: 권리범위확인(특)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May the patentee of an article invention seek a confirmation trial under Article 135 of the Patent Act by specifying, without regard to its manufacturing method, the article practised by the respondent, and does a manufacturing method recorded in the description or drawings of the target invention confine it to articles made by that method?
Holding
It may. A confirmation trial under Article 135 of the Patent Act fixes the extent of the patent's effect in relation to an object, and that object is the specific form of practice the party taking the trial chose as the target invention; the patentee holds the exclusive right to work the patented invention, and an article invention reaches any article of identical configuration regardless of how it was made. A method added to the description or drawings as an aid to understanding the target invention does not confine the target invention to articles produced by that method.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 물건발명의 특허권자는 피심판청구인이 실시한 물건을 제조방법과 관계없이 확인대상 발명으로 특정하여 특허권의 권리범위에 속하는지 확인을 구할 수 있고, 이때 확인대상 발명의 설명서나 도면에 확인대상 발명의 이해를 돕기 위한 부연 설명으로 제조방법을 부가적으로 기재하였다고 하여 그러한 제조방법으로 제조한 물건만이 심판의 대상인 확인대상 발명이 된다고 할 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, the patentee of a product invention may specify the product practiced by the respondent to the request for adjudication as the invention to be confirmed, irrespective of the method for manufacturing it, and seek confirmation as to whether it falls within the scope of the patent right, and in such case, even where a manufacturing method is additionally described in the specification or drawings of the invention to be confirmed as an explanatory note to aid understanding of the invention to be confirmed, it cannot be regarded that only a product manufactured by such a manufacturing method becomes the invention to be confirmed which is the subject of the adjudication.
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
특허법 제135조가 규정하고 있는 권리범위 확인심판은 특허권의 효력이 미치는 범위를 대상물과의 관계에서 구체적으로 확정하는 것으로, 그 대상물은 심판청구인이 심판의 대상으로 삼은 구체적인 실시 형태인 확인대상 발명이다
Unofficial English translation
The trial to confirm the scope of a patent right provided in Article 135 of the Patent Act is to specifically determine, in relation to the object, the scope to which the effect of the patent right extends, and the object thereof is the invention to be confirmed, which is the concrete mode of practice taken as the subject of the adjudication by the requester for adjudication.
Factors
- 그 대상물은 심판청구인이 심판의 대상으로 삼은 구체적인 실시 형태인 확인대상 발명이다
- 특허권자는 업으로서 특허발명을 실시할 권리를 독점하고(특허법 제94조 제1항)
- 그 물건을 생산·사용·양도·대여 또는 수입하거나 그 물건의 양도 또는 대여의 청약을 하는 행위가 물건발명의 실시이므로[특허법 제2조 제3호 (가)목]
- 물건발명의 특허권은 물건발명과 동일한 구성을 가진 물건이 실시되었다면 제조방법과 관계없이 그 물건에 효력이 미친다
- 확인대상 발명의 이해를 돕기 위한 부연 설명으로 제조방법을 부가적으로 기재하였다고 하여
Unofficial English translation
• The object thereof is the invention to be confirmed, which is the concrete mode of practice taken as the subject of the adjudication by the requester for adjudication
• The patentee has the exclusive right to practice the patented invention as a business (Article 94 (1) of the Patent Act)
• Since an act of producing, using, transferring, lending, or importing the product, or offering to transfer or lend the product, constitutes the practice of a product invention [Article 2 (3)(a) of the Patent Act]
• A patent right for a product invention has effect on a product, if a product having the same configuration as the product invention has been practiced, irrespective of the method for manufacturing the product
• even where a manufacturing method is additionally described as an explanatory note to aid understanding of the invention to be confirmed,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1991. 3. 27. 선고 90후373 판결(공1991, 1287)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 90Hu373 decided March 27, 1991 (Gong 1991, 1287)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1991. 3. 27. 선고 90후373 판결(공1991, 1287)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a manufacturing method recorded in the description or drawings of a target invention does affect the structure or properties of the article claimed, may the target invention still be specified without regard to that method?
The Patent Court's judgment on remand, once it identifies the target invention without the added method and re-examines whether the plaintiff practises it, will show how this rule works in practice. Any amendment to Article 135 or Article 2(3)(a) of the Patent Act, or a later decision treating process recitals in a claim as limiting the target invention, 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 30 August 2019 (2018Heo8906), read the target invention narrowly: only an article produced by the manufacturing method that the description and drawings recorded as an extra explanation could count as the target invention. It then found no evidence that the product shown in the photograph at Gap Exhibit No. 4 had been made by that method, and held that the plaintiff was not practising the target invention.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the legal principle on ascertaining the target invention and had failed to conduct the necessary examination, with an effect on the judgment. The process-related terms in the claim, such as weaving, weaving step and fulling, expressed the structure, shape and state of the three-dimensional figured textile rather than a series of process steps, and even if read as a method recital they did not affect the claimed structure or properties. The description and drawings recorded the configuration corresponding to the elements of claim 1, so the patent's effect could be checked against them, and the added explanation of a weaving method did not change the outcome. The Court reversed and remanded without ruling on the remaining grounds.
Distinguishing conditions
- A target invention whose description and drawings do not record the specific configuration corresponding to the elements of the claim, so that the patent's effect cannot be checked against them.
- A claim whose process terms are recited because they shape the structure, properties or state claimed, so that the method is not merely an extra explanation but part of what is claimed.
- A trial concerning a method invention, since the rule was stated for an article invention and rests on Article 2(3)(a) of the Patent Act.
Record verification notes
First confirm that the invention in suit is an article invention and read the claim's process terms against the structure, shape and state it claims, since the Court treated them here as describing the article rather than a process. Then check whether the description and drawings of the target invention record the configuration corresponding to each element of the claim, because that is what allowed the patent's effect to be examined. Finally, the Court did not rule on the other grounds of appeal, so nothing in this decision disposes of them.
From the official text
Points at issue
물건발명의 특허권자가 피심판청구인이 실시한 물건을 제조방법과 관계없이 확인대상 발명으로 특정하여 특허권의 권리범위에 속하는지에 대한 확인을 구할 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 확인대상 발명의 설명서나 도면에 제조방법을 부가적으로 기재한 경우, 그러한 제조방법으로 제조한 물건만이 심판의 대상인 확인대상 발명이 되는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the patentee of a product invention may specify the product practiced by the respondent to the request for adjudication as the invention to be confirmed, irrespective of the method for manufacturing it, and seek confirmation as to whether it falls within the scope of the patent right (affirmative), and whether, in such case, where a manufacturing method is additionally described in the specification or drawings of the invention to be confirmed, only a product manufactured by such a manufacturing method constitutes the invention to be confirmed which is the subject of the adjudication (negative)
Summary of the holding
특허법 제135조가 규정하고 있는 권리범위 확인심판은 특허권의 효력이 미치는 범위를 대상물과의 관계에서 구체적으로 확정하는 것으로, 그 대상물은 심판청구인이 심판의 대상으로 삼은 구체적인 실시 형태인 확인대상 발명이다. 특허권자는 업으로서 특허발명을 실시할 권리를 독점하고(특허법 제94조 제1항), 특허발명이 물건발명인 경우에는 그 물건을 생산·사용·양도·대여 또는 수입하거나 그 물건의 양도 또는 대여의 청약을 하는 행위가 물건발명의 실시이므로[특허법 제2조 제3호 (가)목], 물건발명의 특허권은 물건발명과 동일한 구성을 가진 물건이 실시되었다면 제조방법과 관계없이 그 물건에 효력이 미친다. 따라서 물건발명의 특허권자는 피심판청구인이 실시한 물건을 제조방법과 관계없이 확인대상 발명으로 특정하여 특허권의 권리범위에 속하는지 확인을 구할 수 있고, 이때 확인대상 발명의 설명서나 도면에 확인대상 발명의 이해를 돕기 위한 부연 설명으로 제조방법을 부가적으로 기재하였다고 하여 그러한 제조방법으로 제조한 물건만이 심판의 대상인 확인대상 발명이 된다고 할 수는 없다.
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
특허법 제2조 제3호 (가)목, 제94조 제1항, 제135조, 제140조 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