Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Standing to seek invalidity on an unauthorized applicant's filing
Supreme Court, Jan. 9, 2025, 2022Hu10814 (judgment)
Case name: 등록무효(특)[무권리자 출원을 무효사유로 한 특허무효심판의 청구인 적격이 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a patent was registered on an application filed by a person without the right to obtain it, may only the proper holder of that right or an examiner file a trial for invalidity on that ground, and is the claimant's standing judged as at the date of the trial decision?
Holding
Only the proper holder of the right to obtain the patent, or an examiner, has standing to file a trial for invalidity on the ground that the applicant had no such right, and a petition filed by anyone else is improper and must be dismissed without deciding the invalidity ground. Whether the claimant is such a proper holder is judged as at the date of the trial decision. Here the right, which vested in the inventor on completion of the invention, had passed by implied agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to an employee of the defendant company who filed the application, so the plaintiff was not a proper holder and lacked standing, the petition was procedurally improper and had to be dismissed without reaching the invalidity ground, and the Patent Court was right to dismiss the plaintiff's claim to revoke that dismissal.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
특허법 제133조 제1항 전문은 "이해관계인(제2호 본문의 경우에는 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가진 자만 해당한다) 또는 심사관은 특허가 다음 각호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우에는 무효심판을 청구할 수 있다."라고 규정하고 있으므로, 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지는 정당한 권리자 또는 심사관만이 무권리자의 출원을 무효사유로 한 특허무효심판의 청구인 적격이 있다.
Unofficial English translation
The first sentence of Article 133 (1) of the Patent Act provides that "An interested party (in the case of the main text of subparagraph 2, only a person who has the right to obtain a patent) or an examiner may request a trial for invalidation where a patent falls under any of the following subparagraphs," and therefore, only a legitimate right holder who has the right to obtain a patent or an examiner has standing as a petitioner for a trial for invalidation of a patent on the ground that the application was filed by a person without the right.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
심판청구인이 무권리자의 출원을 무효사유로 한 특허무효심판을 청구할 수 있는 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지는 정당한 권리자에 해당하는지는 심결 당시를 기준으로 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Whether the petitioner is a legitimate right holder who has the right to obtain a patent and thus may request a trial for invalidation of a patent on the ground that the application was filed by a person without the right must be determined based on the time of the decision.
Factors
- 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지는 정당한 권리자 또는 심사관만이 무권리자의 출원을 무효사유로 한 특허무효심판의 청구인 적격이 있다
- 청구인 적격이 없는 자가 제기한 특허의 무효심판청구는 부적법하므로 무효사유에 대하여 판단할 필요 없이 심판청구를 각하하여야 한다
- 심판청구인이 무권리자의 출원을 무효사유로 한 특허무효심판을 청구할 수 있는 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지는 정당한 권리자에 해당하는지는 심결 당시를 기준으로 판단하여야 한다
- 갑과 병 주식회사의 묵시적 합의에 따라 병 회사의 직원인 을에게 적법하게 이전되었으므로
Unofficial English translation
• Only a legitimate right holder who has the right to obtain a patent or an examiner has standing as a petitioner for a trial for invalidation of a patent on the ground that the application was filed by a person without the right
• A request for a trial for invalidation of a patent filed by a person who lacks standing as a petitioner is unlawful, and thus the request for adjudication must be dismissed on procedural grounds without the need to determine the grounds for invalidation
• Whether the petitioner is a legitimate right holder who has the right to obtain a patent and thus may request a trial for invalidation of a patent on the ground that the application was filed by a person without the right must be determined based on the time of the decision
• as it was lawfully transferred to B, an employee of C Corporation, by an implied agreement between A and C Corporation,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1997. 6. 27. 선고 97후235 판결(공1997하, 2182), 대법원 2009. 9. 10. 선고 2007후4625 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 97Hu235 decided June 27, 1997 (Gong 1997 Ha, 2182); Supreme Court Decision 2007Hu4625 decided September 10, 2009
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1997. 6. 27. 선고 97후235 판결(공1997하, 2182), 대법원 2009. 9. 10. 선고 2007후4625 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What facts establish the implied agreement by which the right to obtain a patent passed from the inventor to an employee of another company?
A later Supreme Court decision on how an implied transfer of the right to obtain a patent is proved would require this entry to be read again, as would an amendment to Article 33(1) or Article 133(1)(ii) of the Patent Act that changes who may file an invalidity trial.
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: In the decision below, the petition for an invalidity trial of the patent entitled 'constant airflow control method', filed by the plaintiff as inventor on the ground that the application had been filed by a person without the right, was dismissed. The Patent Court, in its judgment of 28 September 2022 (2021Heo4232), held that the plaintiff was not an interested person within the chapeau of Article 133(1) of the Patent Act, so the petition was improper, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim to have that decision revoked.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was not a proper holder of the right to obtain the patent as at the date of the trial decision, so the petition was procedurally improper and had to be dismissed without deciding whether the applicant had lacked the right. It found the Patent Court's conclusion correct, although some parts of the reasons were not aptly expressed, and held that the appeal raised no misapplication of law, omission of decision or incomplete hearing affecting the judgment. The appeal was dismissed with the unanimous agreement of the participating Justices, and the losing plaintiff bears the costs.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the invalidity trial is filed by an examiner, who has standing under the chapeau of Article 133(1) without being a proper holder of the right to obtain the patent.
- A case in which the ground of invalidity relied on is something other than an application filed by a person without the right to obtain it, so that any interested person may file.
- A case in which the claimant still held the right to obtain the patent as at the date of the trial decision.
Record verification notes
Set the date on which the right to obtain the patent left the claimant against the date of the trial decision, since standing is judged as at that date. Then gather what shows the transfer, here the implied agreement between the inventor and the defendant company, and confirm whether the petition was filed by a proper holder or by an examiner. Check which version of Articles 33(1) and 133(1)(ii) of the Patent Act was in force.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 청구인 적격이 없는 자가 특허무효심판을 청구한 경우, 무효사유에 대하여 판단할 필요 없이 심판청구를 각하하여야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 심판청구인이 무권리자의 출원을 무효사유로 한 특허무효심판을 청구할 수 있는 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지는 정당한 권리자에 해당하는지 판단하는 기준 시점(=심결 시) [2] 발명자인 갑이 명칭을 ‘정풍량 제어 방법’으로 하는 특허발명에 관하여 을이 무권리자로서 특허출원을 하여 특허권 설정등록이 마쳐졌다는 이유로 등록무효심판을 청구한 사안에서, 위 특허발명에 관한 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리는 갑과 병 주식회사의 묵시적 합의에 따라 병 회사의 직원인 을에게 적법하게 이전되어 갑은 심결 당시 위 특허발명에 관한 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지는 정당한 권리자가 아니므로, 청구인 적격이 없는 갑이 제기한 심판청구를 각하하여야 한다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where a person who lacks standing as a petitioner requests a trial for invalidation of a patent, the request for adjudication must be dismissed on procedural grounds without the need to determine the grounds for invalidation (affirmative), and the point in time serving as the basis for determining whether the petitioner is a legitimate right holder who has the right to obtain a patent and thus may request a trial for invalidation of a patent on the ground that the application was filed by a person without the right (= the time of the decision) [2] In a case where A, the inventor, requested a trial for invalidation of the registration of a patent right granted on a patent invention entitled "Constant Air Volume Control Method" on the ground that B filed the patent application without the right, thereby completing the registration of the establishment of the patent right, a case holding that the right to obtain a patent for the patent invention was lawfully transferred to B, an employee of C Corporation, by an implied agreement between A and C Corporation, and therefore A was not a legitimate right holder who had the right to obtain a patent for the patent invention at the time of the decision, and thus the request for adjudication filed by A, who lacked standing as a petitioner, should be dismissed on procedural grounds
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). 이러한 정당한 권리자 아닌 사람(이하 ‘무권리자’라 한다)이 한 특허출원에 대하여 특허권의 설정등록이 이루어지면 특허무효사유에 해당한다(특허법 제133조 제1항 제2호 본문). 특허법 제133조 제1항 전문은 "이해관계인(제2호 본문의 경우에는 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가진 자만 해당한다) 또는 심사관은 특허가 다음 각호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우에는 무효심판을 청구할 수 있다."라고 규정하고 있으므로, 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지는 정당한 권리자 또는 심사관만이 무권리자의 출원을 무효사유로 한 특허무효심판의 청구인 적격이 있다. 청구인 적격이 없는 자가 제기한 특허의 무효심판청구는 부적법하므로 무효사유에 대하여 판단할 필요 없이 심판청구를 각하하여야 한다. 심판청구인이 무권리자의 출원을 무효사유로 한 특허무효심판을 청구할 수 있는 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지는 정당한 권리자에 해당하는지는 심결 당시를 기준으로 판단하여야 한다. [2] 발명자인 갑이 명칭을 ‘정풍량 제어 방법’으로 하는 특허발명에 관하여 을이 무권리자로서 특허출원을 하여 특허권 설정등록이 마쳐졌다는 이유로 등록무효심판을 청구한 사안에서, 위 특허발명에 관한 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리는 발명의 완성과 동시에 발명자인 갑에게 원시적으로 귀속되었다가 갑과 병 주식회사의 묵시적 합의에 따라 병 회사의 직원인 을에게 적법하게 이전되었으므로, 갑은 심결 당시 위 특허발명에 관한 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지는 정당한 권리자가 아니고, 따라서 갑은 특허를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가지는 정당한 권리자 아닌 사람의 출원을 무효사유로 한 특허무효심판의 청구인 적격이 없고, 청구인 적격이 없는 갑이 제기한 심판청구는 부적법하므로, 위 특허발명에 관하여 을이 무권리자로서 특허출원을 하여 특허권 설정등록이 마쳐졌는지에 대하여 판단할 필요 없이 심판청구를 각하하여야 한다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 특허법 제33조 제1항, 제133조 제1항 제2호 [2] 특허법 제33조 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