Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
A patent filed after the right to a patent was contractually assigned away
Supreme Court, May 14, 2020, 2020Hu10087 (judgment)
Case name: 등록무효(특)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the right to obtain a patent had passed by contract to another before the patent application was filed, is a patent registered on that assignor's filing a patent of a person who is not a legitimate right holder, and is the assignee who later received such a patent a third party within Article 38(1) of the Patent Act?
Holding
It is. The person who made the invention or their successor holds the right to obtain a patent, and once that right has passed by contract before filing, the assignor is no longer its holder, so a registration on the assignor's filing is a patent of a person who is not a legitimate right holder under Article 133(1)(ii) of the Patent Act. A third party under Article 38(1) means only a person who has acquired a legal position incompatible with the successor's position in that right, and an assignee who took a patent that is void for that reason is not such a third party.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
특허출원 전에 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 계약에 따라 이전한 양도인은 더 이상 그 권리의 귀속주체가 아니므로 그러한 양도인이 한 특허출원에 대하여 설정등록이 이루어진 특허권은 특허무효사유에 해당하는 무권리자의 특허이다.
Unofficial English translation
A transferor who transferred the right to obtain a patent by contract before the patent application is no longer the subject to whom that right belongs, and accordingly, a patent right for which registration of the establishment has been made on a patent application filed by such transferor is a patent of a person without authority constituting grounds for invalidation of the patent.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 보조참가로 인한 부분을 포함하여 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal, including those incurred by the auxiliary intervention.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 제3자는 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리에 관하여 승계인의 지위와 양립할 수 없는 법률상 지위를 취득한 사람에 한한다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, a third party is limited to a person who has acquired a legal position that is incompatible with the position of the successor with respect to the right to obtain a patent.
Factors
- 발명을 한 사람 또는 그 승계인은 특허법에서 정하는 바에 따라 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가진다(특허법 제33조 제1항 본문)
- 정당한 권리자 아닌 사람(이하 ‘무권리자’라 한다)이 한 특허출원에 대하여 특허권의 설정등록이 이루어지면 특허무효사유에 해당한다(특허법 제133조 제1항 제2호)
- 특허출원 전에 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 계약에 따라 이전한 양도인은 더 이상 그 권리의 귀속주체가 아니므로
- 특허출원 전에 이루어진 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리의 승계는 그 승계인이 특허출원을 하여야 제3자에게 대항할 수 있다(특허법 제38조 제1항)
- 정당한 권리자 아닌 사람의 특허로서 특허무효사유가 있는 특허권을 이전받은 양수인은 특허법 제38조 제1항에서 말하는 제3자에 해당하지 않는다
Unofficial English translation
• A person who has made an invention or a successor thereto has the right to obtain a patent in accordance with the provisions of the Patent Act (main sentence of Article 33(1) of the Patent Act)
• Where registration of the establishment of a patent right is made on a patent application filed by a person who is not the rightful owner (hereinafter referred to as a 'person without authority'), it constitutes grounds for invalidation of the patent (Article 133(1)2 of the Patent Act)
• A transferor who transferred the right to obtain a patent by contract before the patent application is no longer the subject to whom that right belongs, and accordingly
• Where the right to obtain a patent is succeeded before the patent application, the successor must file the patent application in order to assert the right against a third party (Article 38(1) of the Patent Act)
• A transferee who has received a transfer of a patent right for which grounds for invalidation of the patent exist as a patent of a person who is not the rightful owner does not fall within the third party referred to in Article 38(1) of the Patent Act
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a pre-filing transfer agreement is later voided so that the right returns to the assignor, does a patent registered on the assignor's filing remain a patent of a person who is not the legitimate right holder?
A later Supreme Court decision on Article 38(1) of the Patent Act, or an amendment to Article 33(1), Article 38(1) or Article 133(1)(ii) of the Patent Act, would require this entry to be read again. A record showing that the plaintiff did not in fact take the patent from Woorchang Engineering would also reopen the third-party question.
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 “If a pre-filing transfer agreement is later voided so that the right returns to the assignor, does a patent registered on the assignor's filing remain a patent of a person who is not the legitimate right holder?” vs Independent “What remedies may the rightful successor pursue against a subsequent transferee of the invalid patent?”
The primary reading asks whether the patent stays invalid if the pre-filing transfer is later rescinded, while the independent reading asks what remedies the rightful successor has against a later transferee.
특허출원 전에 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 계약에 따라 이전한 양도인은 더 이상 그 권리의 귀속주체가 아니므로 그러한 양도인이 한 특허출원에 대하여 설정등록이 이루어진 특허권은 특허무효사유에 해당하는 무권리자의 특허이다.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 20 December 2019 (2019Heo2141), held that the right to obtain a patent for the patented invention had passed, upon completion of the invention, to Defendant's auxiliary participant by way of the first and second contracts. Woorchang Engineering had lost its position as a successor holding that right and was therefore a person without the right, so the patent it filed and obtained was void. It also held that the plaintiff, who had received that patent from Woorchang Engineering, was not a third party under Article 38(1) of the Patent Act and could not have that provision applied by analogy.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the law it stated, Articles 33(1) and 38(1) of the Patent Act had not been misread. On the plaintiff's further ground that the defendant or its auxiliary participant had agreed to, or tacitly approved, Woorchang Engineering filing in its own name, the court below had not misapplied the rules on interpreting declarations of intention, overstepped the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or failed to examine what it needed to, and the Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A filing made by the successor who holds the right to obtain a patent, since the invalidity ground turns on the filing having been made by a person who is no longer the holder of that right.
- A case in which the assignee files the application after the pre-filing transfer, since Article 38(1) then allows the transfer to be asserted against third parties.
- A transferee who has acquired a legal position incompatible with the successor's position in the right to obtain a patent, since such a person is a third party within Article 38(1).
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, trace the chain of the right to obtain a patent from the completion of the invention to the application date, contract by contract, and identify the date of each transfer relative to the filing. Then confirm that the person named as the applicant was, on that date, no longer the holder of the right, and that the plaintiff received the registered patent from that person rather than from the legitimate holder. The decision says nothing on proof, so who bears the burden must be taken from the procedural rules of the case.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 특허출원 전에 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 계약에 따라 이전한 양도인이 특허출원을 하여 설정등록이 이루어진 경우, 그 특허권이 특허무효사유에 해당하는 ‘정당한 권리자 아닌 사람’의 특허인지 여부(적극) [2] 특허법 제38조 제1항에서 규정한 ‘제3자’의 의미 및 ‘정당한 권리자 아닌 사람’의 특허로서 특허무효사유가 있는 특허권을 이전받은 양수인이 이에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where a transferor who transferred the right to obtain a patent by contract before the patent application files the patent application and registration of the establishment of the patent right is made, that patent right constitutes a patent of a 'person who is not the rightful owner' constituting grounds for invalidation of the patent (affirmative) [2] The meaning of 'third party' as provided in Article 38(1) of the Patent Act, and whether a transferee who has received a transfer of a patent right for which grounds for invalidation of the patent exist as a patent of a 'person who is not the rightful owner' falls within such third party (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 발명을 한 사람 또는 그 승계인은 특허법에서 정하는 바에 따라 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가진다(특허법 제33조 제1항 본문). 만일 이러한 정당한 권리자 아닌 사람(이하 ‘무권리자’라 한다)이 한 특허출원에 대하여 특허권의 설정등록이 이루어지면 특허무효사유에 해당한다(특허법 제133조 제1항 제2호). 특허출원 전에 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 계약에 따라 이전한 양도인은 더 이상 그 권리의 귀속주체가 아니므로 그러한 양도인이 한 특허출원에 대하여 설정등록이 이루어진 특허권은 특허무효사유에 해당하는 무권리자의 특허이다. [2] 특허출원 전에 이루어진 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리의 승계는 그 승계인이 특허출원을 하여야 제3자에게 대항할 수 있다(특허법 제38조 제1항). 여기서 제3자는 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리에 관하여 승계인의 지위와 양립할 수 없는 법률상 지위를 취득한 사람에 한한다. 정당한 권리자 아닌 사람의 특허로서 특허무효사유가 있는 특허권을 이전받은 양수인은 특허법 제38조 제1항에서 말하는 제3자에 해당하지 않는다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 보조참가로 인한 부분을 포함하여 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal, including those incurred by the auxiliary intervention.
Provisions referred to
[1] 특허법 제33조 제1항, 제133조 제1항 제2호 [2] 특허법 제33조 제1항, 제38조 제1항, 제133조 제1항 제2호
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