Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Claim scope read without narrowing it by the description
Supreme Court, June 30, 2021, 2021Da217011 (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: 특허권침해금지등청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In fixing the scope of a patented invention, may the claims be narrowed or widened by the description or drawings, and what must be present without change in an accused product or process for it to infringe?
Holding
The scope of protection is set by the matters recited in the claims, and the description and drawings are consulted only to understand the technical meaning of those matters; they may not narrow or widen the claims. Infringement requires that every component of the claimed invention and the organic combination between those components be included without change in the accused product or process. The accused virtual golf simulator detected terrain conditions and mat conditions and adjusted the playing distance by taking both together, so it included the components of claim 1 and their organic combination without change and infringed the invention.
Points at issue, verbatim
갑 회사의 실시제품은 지형조건과 매트조건을 함께 고려하여 비거리를 조정하는 것으로 특허발명의 각 구성요소와 각 구성요소 간의 유기적 결합관계를 그대로 포함하고 있으므로 을 회사의 특허발명을 침해한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
a case holding that Company A’s product infringes Company B’s patented invention, since it adjusts the driving distance by taking into account both the terrain conditions and the mat conditions, and thus includes as they are each constituent element of the patented invention and the organic combined relationship between the respective constituent elements
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 침해대상제품 등에 그대로 포함되어 있어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
each constituent element set forth in the claims of the patented invention and the organic combined relationship between those constituent elements must be included as they are in the accused product, etc.
Factors
- ‘청구범위에 적혀 있는 사항’을 해석하는 방법 및
- 발명의 설명이나 도면 등 다른 기재에 따라 청구범위를 제한하거나 확장하여 해석하는 것이 허용되는지 여부(소극)
- 특허권침해소송의 상대방이 제조하는 제품 또는 사용하는 방법이 특허발명의 특허권을 침해한다고 보기 위한 요건
- 지형조건과 매트조건을 함께 고려하여 비거리를 조정하는 것으로
- 특허발명의 각 구성요소와 각 구성요소 간의 유기적 결합관계를 그대로 포함하고 있으므로
Unofficial English translation
• The method of interpreting the ‘matters stated in the claims,’ and
• Whether it is permissible to interpret the claims by restricting or expanding them in accordance with other statements such as the description or the drawings (negative)
• The requirements for regarding a product manufactured or a method used by the opposing party in a patent infringement lawsuit as infringing the patent right of the patented invention
• adjusting the driving distance by taking into account both the terrain conditions and the mat conditions
• since it includes as they are each constituent element of the patented invention and the organic combined relationship between the respective constituent elements
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2012. 12. 27. 선고 2011후3230 판결, 대법원 2019. 10. 17. 선고 2019다222782, 222799 판결(공2019하, 2090)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2011Hu3230 decided December 27, 2012; Supreme Court Decisions 2019Da222782, 222799 decided October 17, 2019 (Gong 2019 Ha, 2090)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2012. 12. 27. 선고 2011후3230 판결, 대법원 2019. 10. 17. 선고 2019다222782, 222799 판결(공2019하, 2090) / [2] 대법원 2011. 9. 29. 선고 2010다65818 판결(공2011하, 2211)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a device takes both terrain conditions and mat conditions into account but carries out the calculation outside the claimed controller, does it still include component 4 of claim 1?
The Patent Court's judgment on remand, once it re-examines the configuration of the accused product against claim 1, will show how the requirement is applied to these facts. A later decision that treats a device carrying out the calculation outside the controller differently, or an amendment to Article 97 of the Patent Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
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”
Primary reads the holding as stating the general infringement requirement (요건 제시), while independent reads it as applying that requirement to this product (사안 적용). The court states the requirement and then applies it to the accused product, so both readings are possible.
갑 회사의 실시제품은 지형조건과 매트조건을 함께 고려하여 비거리를 조정하는 것으로 특허발명의 각 구성요소와 각 구성요소 간의 유기적 결합관계를 그대로 포함하고 있으므로 을 회사의 특허발명을 침해한다고 한 사례Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If a device takes both terrain conditions and mat conditions into account but carries out the calculation outside the claimed controller, does it still include component 4 of claim 1?” vs Independent “What remedies and scope of relief should follow from the infringement on remand?”
Primary asks whether a device that computes outside the claimed controller still includes component 4. Independent asks what remedies and scope of relief should follow on remand. The questions are different.
갑 회사의 실시제품은 지형조건과 매트조건을 함께 고려하여 비거리를 조정하는 것으로 특허발명의 각 구성요소와 각 구성요소 간의 유기적 결합관계를 그대로 포함하고 있으므로 을 회사의 특허발명을 침해한다고 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 15 January 2021 (2019Na1906), read component 4 as a configuration that adjusts the playing distance by computing a mat-based correction value into a terrain-based distance reduction rate. It then found that the defendant's product had no configuration that computes a preset reduction rate, corrects it by a preset correction value according to the mat conditions and adjusts the resulting preset distance, and so held that the product did not infringe claim 1.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that claim 1 did not limit the adjustment to any particular method and the description gave no definition or limitation either, so any adjustment within the range a skilled person could contemplate, provided it takes both terrain conditions and mat conditions into account, may fall within it. The description's examples showed that a method need not contain steps of calculating a preset correction value and operating on it with the reduction rate. The accused product detected both conditions, applied the reduction rate in the fairway mat area and applied none in the trouble mat area, and its other components were identical, so it included every component and the organic combination without change; the court below had misapprehended the law on claim construction with an effect on the outcome.
Distinguishing conditions
- An accused product that adjusts the playing distance from terrain conditions alone, without taking mat conditions into account.
- A claim or a description that expressly defines or limits a particular adjustment method, so that the accused product's method falls outside it.
- An accused product whose components other than the distance-adjusting component differ from those of claim 1, so that the organic combination is not included without change.
Record verification notes
Set each component of claim 1 and the organic combination between the components against the accused product one by one, because the Court decided the case on that comparison. Then read the description to see whether it defines or limits a specific adjustment method, and note that a restriction on which mat areas allow a strike did not by itself take this product outside the claim. Finally check how the accused product adjusts the distance in each mat area, since that was the finding on which infringement turned.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 특허발명의 보험범위를 확정하는 기준인 ‘청구범위에 적혀 있는 사항’을 해석하는 방법 및 발명의 설명이나 도면 등 다른 기재에 따라 청구범위를 제한하거나 확장하여 해석하는 것이 허용되는지 여부(소극) [2] 특허권침해소송의 상대방이 제조하는 제품 또는 사용하는 방법이 특허발명의 특허권을 침해한다고 보기 위한 요건 [3] 가상 골프 시뮬레이션 장치인 갑 주식회사의 실시제품이 명칭을 ‘비거리 감소율에 대한 보정을 제공하는 가상 골프 시뮬레이션 장치 및 방법’으로 하는 을 주식회사의 특허발명을 침해하는지 문제 된 사안에서, 갑 회사의 실시제품은 지형조건과 매트조건을 함께 고려하여 비거리를 조정하는 것으로 특허발명의 각 구성요소와 각 구성요소 간의 유기적 결합관계를 그대로 포함하고 있으므로 을 회사의 특허발명을 침해한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The method of interpreting the ‘matters stated in the claims,’ which serves as the criterion for determining the scope of the patented invention, and whether it is permissible to interpret the claims by restricting or expanding them in accordance with other statements such as the description or the drawings (negative) [2] The requirements for regarding a product manufactured or a method used by the opposing party in a patent infringement lawsuit as infringing the patent right of the patented invention [3] In a case where it was at issue whether the product of Company A, a virtual golf simulation apparatus, infringed the patent invention of Company B titled ‘Virtual Golf Simulation Apparatus and Method Providing Compensation for a Distance Reduction Rate,’ a case holding that Company A’s product infringes Company B’s patented invention, since it adjusts the driving distance by taking into account both the terrain conditions and the mat conditions, and thus includes as they are each constituent element of the patented invention and the organic combined relationship between the respective constituent elements
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 [2] 특허법 제97조, 제126조 [3] 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