정정심결의 확정과 재심사유―대법원 2020. 1. 22. 선고 2016후2522 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로―

Abstract

It has been the Supreme Court’s position to review Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act, except in special cases, where a verdict recognizing correction is confirmed during an appeal against invalidation, scope of rights, and patent infringement litigation cases. Recently, the Supreme Court said that Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act is not the ground for retrial, if the trial ruling to correct the specification or drawings of a patented invention becomes final and conclusive after the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing through the ruling of the 2522 en banc after the sentence of January 22, 2020. However, it is regrettable that the ruling of the unanimous agreement did not provide any criteria for determining which case the retrospective effect of the amendments prescribed by the Patent Act may be limited, and it can be too harsh for patent holders without attributable reasons, that the process in the patent court can be delayed than before, and that the resolution of the dispute can be delayed if we look at specific cases. This paper reviews if the Supreme Court en banc’s confirmation concerning the ground for retrial was reasonable.