# Patent against patent: when a Korean scope-confirmation trial is admissible The Supreme Court separates identification of the accused technology from the legal interest required when both parties hold patents. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1804 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Patent against patent: when a Korean scope-confirmation trial is admissible The Supreme Court separates identification of the accused technology from the legal interest required when both parties hold patents. Patents 2026.10.07 published IPLEX 6 min read A procedural question before the merits In decision 2024Hu10436 of 11 September 2025, Korea’s Supreme Court considered a positive scope-confirmation trial: a patentee’s request for the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board to determine that specified technology falls within its patent. The request, filed on 29 April 2022, relied on claim 1 as corrected in 2019, not indiscriminately on the entire patent. The board dismissed the request as inadmissible on 9 May 2023, finding insufficient identification and a mismatch with the respondent’s actual technology. The Patent Court set that decision aside on 4 April 2024 in case 2023Heo11944. The Supreme Court accepted key aspects of the technical comparison but remanded because a separate admissibility issue remained unresolved. Identifying the technology actually used The system involved formwork, a working platform, a safety rail, a waler and a connector. As the waler rose relative to the rail, the arrangement increased its distance from the building wall. The upper connector was fixed against relative rotation with the waler; its lower end could slide relative to the rail’s brace. A description need not reproduce every detail of a product: it must specify the corresponding features sufficiently to compare them with the patent claim. Different labels, such as SR-brace and SR-connector, did not change the structure or connections. Figures 2 and 3 essentially matched the respondent’s catalogue. The court therefore upheld the finding that the identified technology was factually the technology used; a trial directed at unused technology would lack a legal interest. The additional obstacle presented by a later patent As a rule, an earlier patentee cannot use a positive scope-confirmation trial against a later registered invention to negate that later right outside invalidation proceedings. An exception may arise where the inventions stand in a dependent-use relationship under Article 98 of the Korean Patent Act, allowing scope to be assessed without denying the later registration’s validity. The respondent asserted that the actual embodiment was its later patented invention. The claimants asserted a dependent-use relationship with corrected claim 1. Establishing sufficient identification and actual use did not resolve those competing positions. The court needed to examine whether the specified subject was a concrete embodiment of the later patent and whether the requisite dependency existed. Remand and preparation of evidence The legal interest is an admissibility requirement examined by the court of its own motion. This does not require the court to discover every fact independently, but doubts arising from the record require examination and appropriate clarification of the parties’ allegations and proof. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded without finally deciding dependency or infringement. Before commencing proceedings, compare the operative corrected claim, the technical description, actual drawings and the later patent separately. Explain the embodiment and the alleged dependent relationship, rather than relying on similar terminology or the mere existence of two patents. The proper procedural route depends on those distinctions. The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the facts and the court’s reasoning. Read the Korean source This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances. Discuss this topic ↗ All articles Related service: Patents & utility models ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗ ON THIS PAGE A procedural question before the merits Identifying the technology actually used The additional obstacle presented by a later patent Remand and preparation of evidence TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer FlashAttention-2: making long-context attention run efficiently on GPUs ↗ Older MAD-RAG: preserving visual evidence when retrieved text distracts a model ↗ Related insights Patents 2026.10.16 Alloy patents: why different numerical ranges may not establish inventive step Korean Supreme Court case 2023Hu10637 examines composition, intended use and evidence of technical effects in welding-wire claims. ↗ Read article Patents 2026.10.15 Who must prove that a patent was filed without entitlement? Korean Supreme Court case 2019Hu11268 distinguishes technical similarity from proof of unauthorised appropriation of an invention. ↗ Read article Patents 2026.10.14 General powers of attorney and correction of Korean patent formalities Supreme Court case 2021Du63099 distinguishes written proof of authority from the form used to submit it within a correction period. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/patent - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/brunch-case-1804 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/patent#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1804#case-1804-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1804#case-1804-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1804#case-1804-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1804#case-1804-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/flashattention-2-gpu-work-partitioning - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/mad-rag-visual-attention-distraction - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1838 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1838 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1831 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1831 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1828 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1828