Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Novelty of a plant variety and the grace period before filing
Supreme Court, Feb. 27, 2025, 2024Hu11323 (judgment)
Case name: 등록무효(품)[품종보호 출원된 품종이 「식물신품종 보호법」상 품종보호를 받을 수 있는 신규성을 갖추었는지 여부가 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 16(i) of the Plant Variety Protection Act, does the novelty of a protected variety fail where its seeds or harvest were not transferred for use, or were first transferred for use within one year in Korea or four years abroad (six years for fruit and timber trees) before the filing date, and who must prove the ground of invalidity?
Holding
Novelty means that the variety had not been commercialised before the filing date. Because the holder needs to see the market's reaction before deciding whether to seek protection, a transfer for use within the stated periods does not destroy novelty, and the variety keeps it if the seeds or harvest were never transferred for use or were transferred for use within one year in Korea and four years abroad, six years for fruit and timber trees. In an invalidation trial and the resulting action to set aside the decision, the party asserting invalidity must prove the ground.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위와 같은 규정의 내용과 취지를 종합하면, 해당 종자나 그 수확물이 이용을 목적으로 양도되지 않았거나, 이용을 목적으로 대한민국에서 처음 양도된 날부터 1년, 그 밖의 국가에서 처음 양도된 날부터 4년(과수 및 임목의 경우에는 6년) 이내에 품종보호 출원되었다면 그 품종은 신규성이 부정되지 않는다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Taking together the content and purport of the above provisions, if the seeds or the harvested material thereof have not been transferred for the purpose of use, or if the application for plant variety protection has been filed within 1 year from the date of the first transfer thereof for the purpose of use in the Republic of Korea, or within 4 years from the date of the first transfer thereof for the purpose of use in any other country (6 years in the case of fruit trees and forest trees), it must be regarded that novelty of the variety is not negated.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 말하는 신규성은 품종보호 출원일 이전에 그 품종이 상업화되지 않았음을 의미한다.
Unofficial English translation
Novelty as referred to here means that the variety has not been commercialized before the filing date of the application for plant variety protection.
Factors
- 육성과 상업화에 많은 시간과 비용이 소요되는 식물신품종의 특성상
- 품종보호 출원일 이전에 해당 품종의 상업화가 가능한지 시장의 반응을 살필 현실적인 필요가 있다.
- 품종보호 출원일 이전에 품종의 종자나 수확물이 이용을 목적으로 양도되어 상업화된 경우에도 신규성이 상실되지 않는 일정한 유예기간을 두고 있다.
- 종자나 그 수확물이 이용을 목적으로 양도되지 않았거나
- 이용을 목적으로 대한민국에서 처음 양도된 날부터 1년, 그 밖의 국가에서 처음 양도된 날부터 4년(과수 및 임목의 경우에는 6년) 이내에 품종보호 출원되었다면
Unofficial English translation
• Given the nature of new plant varieties, whose breeding and commercialization require a great deal of time and expense,
• there is a practical need to gauge the response of the market as to whether the variety can be commercialized before the filing date of the application for plant variety protection.
• Even where the seeds or the harvested material of the variety have been transferred for the purpose of use and commercialized before the filing date of the application for plant variety protection, a certain grace period is provided during which novelty is not lost,
• if the seeds or the harvested material thereof have not been transferred for the purpose of use, or
• if the application for plant variety protection has been filed within 1 year from the date of the first transfer thereof for the purpose of use in the Republic of Korea, or within 4 years from the date of the first transfer thereof for the purpose of use in any other country (6 years in the case of fruit trees and forest trees),
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
무효사유에 관한 증명책임은 무효라고 주장하는 당사자에게 있다.
Unofficial English translation
The burden of proof as to the ground for invalidation lies with the party asserting invalidity.
Open question and revisit condition
What makes a shipment or transfer of seeds or harvest one made 'for use' within Article 17(1)?
A later decision construing 'a transfer for use' under Article 17(1) of the Plant Variety Protection Act would require this entry to be read again, since this one assumed the point without defining it. So would an amendment to the grace periods in Article 17(1) or to the novelty requirement in Article 16(i), including any change to the six-year period for fruit and timber trees.
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 17 October 2024 (2023Heo203), dealt with a blueberry (highbush) variety named '△△△' filed on 9 December 2019. The plaintiff argued that seedlings or seeds sold commercially since around March 2018 under the name '□□□' were in fact the protected variety, so its novelty was denied. The court below held that the plaintiff's materials did not allow the morphological features of those seedlings to be identified, that even assuming some were shipped under the name '□□□', the circumstances of the shipment made a transfer for use hard to find, and that since no seeds or harvest of this fruit-tree variety had been transferred for use within one year in Korea or six years abroad before 9 December 2019, the variety had novelty.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found a misreading of law: under Article 17(1) of the Plant Variety Protection Act, novelty is not denied where the transfer for use falls within one year in Korea or four years abroad (six years for fruit and timber trees, which covers the blueberry variety here) before the filing date, yet the court below had premised its judgment on the opposite rule and then decided novelty on that footing. The Court held that the error had no effect on the outcome, since the court below had found that the seeds or harvest of the protected variety were never transferred for use before the filing date, and it saw no defect in the fact-finding on whether a transfer had occurred or in the construction of a transfer for use. It dismissed the plaintiff's appeal unanimously.
Distinguishing conditions
- A variety whose seeds or harvest were first transferred for use more than one year before the filing date in Korea, or more than four years, six years for fruit and timber trees, in another country, since novelty is then denied.
- A shipment or transfer that is not one made for use, since the grace period in Article 17(1) is keyed to transfers for use.
- A variety other than a fruit tree or timber tree, for which the period abroad is four years rather than six.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, fix the filing date and trace every shipment of the same genetic material in Korea and abroad, since the periods run from the date of first transfer for use, not from the start of sales. Then gather what identifies the earlier material as the same variety, because the court below refused to find identity on the plaintiff's materials alone, and the burden of proving the invalidity ground rests on the party asserting it. Keep the question whether the transfer was for use separate from the timing.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 식물신품종 보호법 제16조 제1호에서 정한 품종보호를 받을 수 있는 요건 중 하나인 ‘신규성’의 의미 / 품종보호 출원된 품종의 종자나 그 수확물이 이용을 목적으로 양도되지 않았거나, 이용을 목적으로 대한민국에서 처음 양도된 날부터 1년, 그 밖의 국가에서 처음 양도된 날부터 4년(과수 및 임목의 경우에는 6년) 이내에 품종보호 출원된 경우, 그 품종은 신규성이 부정되는지 여부(소극) [2] 식물신품종 보호법상 신규성이 부정됨을 무효사유로 한 품종보호의 무효심판 및 그에 따른 심결취소소송에서 무효사유에 관한 증명책임의 소재(=무효라고 주장하는 당사자)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Meaning of 'novelty,' one of the requirements for eligibility for plant variety protection under Article 16, subparagraph 1 of the Plant Variety Protection Act / Whether novelty of a variety for which an application for plant variety protection has been filed is negated where the seeds of the variety or the harvested material thereof have not been transferred for the purpose of use, or where the application for plant variety protection has been filed within 1 year from the date of the first transfer thereof for the purpose of use in the Republic of Korea, or within 4 years from the date of the first transfer thereof for the purpose of use in any other country (6 years in the case of fruit trees and forest trees) (negative) [2] Where the ground for invalidation is that novelty is negated under the Plant Variety Protection Act, in an invalidation trial of a plant variety protection and a consequent action for revocation of the decision, which party bears the burden of proof on the ground for invalidation (=the party asserting invalidity)
Summary of the holding
[1] 식물신품종 보호법(이하 ‘식물신품종법’이라 한다) 제16조 제1호는 품종이 이 법에 따른 품종보호를 받을 수 있는 요건 중 하나로 신규성을 규정하고 있다. 여기서 말하는 신규성은 품종보호 출원일 이전에 그 품종이 상업화되지 않았음을 의미한다. 그런데 품종보호를 받을 수 있는 권리를 가진 자가 품종보호를 받을지 여부를 결정하기 위해서는, 육성과 상업화에 많은 시간과 비용이 소요되는 식물신품종의 특성상 품종보호 출원일 이전에 해당 품종의 상업화가 가능한지 시장의 반응을 살필 현실적인 필요가 있다. 이에 식물신품종법 제17조 제1항은 ‘품종보호 출원일 이전에 대한민국에서는 1년 이상, 그 밖의 국가에서는 4년[과수 및 임목의 경우에는 6년] 이상 해당 종자나 그 수확물이 이용을 목적으로 양도되지 아니한 경우에는 그 품종은 제16조 제1호의 신규성을 갖춘 것으로 본다.’고 규정하여, 품종보호 출원일 이전에 품종의 종자나 수확물이 이용을 목적으로 양도되어 상업화된 경우에도 신규성이 상실되지 않는 일정한 유예기간을 두고 있다. 위와 같은 규정의 내용과 취지를 종합하면, 해당 종자나 그 수확물이 이용을 목적으로 양도되지 않았거나, 이용을 목적으로 대한민국에서 처음 양도된 날부터 1년, 그 밖의 국가에서 처음 양도된 날부터 4년(과수 및 임목의 경우에는 6년) 이내에 품종보호 출원되었다면 그 품종은 신규성이 부정되지 않는다고 보아야 한다. [2] 식물신품종 보호법상 신규성이 부정됨을 무효사유로 한 품종보호의 무효심판 및 그에 따른 심결취소소송에서 무효사유에 관한 증명책임은 무효라고 주장하는 당사자에게 있다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 식물신품종 보호법 제1조, 제2조, 제3조, 제16조 제1호, 제17조 제1항 [2] 식물신품종 보호법 제92조 제1항 제1호, 민사소송법 제288조[증명책임]
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