Trade Secret Protection in South Korea

1. What is Trade Secret under Korean law?


“Trade secret” under Article 2.2 of the UCPA of Korea means technical or business information that: (i) has not been publicly disclosed, (ii) has an independent economic value, and (iii) has been maintained as secret with substantial effort. The clause of article 2.2 of the UCPA is : "trade secret" means information, including a production method, sale method, useful technical or business information for business activity, that is not known publicly, is the subject of considerable effort to maintain its secrecy and has independent economic value.

2. What is misappropriation or infringement of trade secret under Korean law?


Article 2.3 of the UCPA further stipulates that any of the following acts shall constitute an act of trade secret misappropriation:

(i) acquisition of a trade secret through theft, deception, coercion or other improper means (hereinafter referred to as “act of improper acquisition”), use or disclosure, to a third party, of the acquired trade secret (including disclosure thereof to a third party while maintaining its secrecy);

(ii) acquisition of a trade secret, with the knowledge that an act of improper acquisition was involved with respect to the trade secret or failing to know thereof due to gross negligence, use or disclosure thereof to a third party;

(iii) use or disclosure, to a third party, of a trade secret, with the knowledge gained subsequent to its acquisition that an act of improper acquisition was involved with respect to the trade secret or failing to know thereof due to gross negligence;

(iv) use or disclosure, to a third party, of a trade secret by a person who has a fiduciary duty not to use or divulge the trade secret under a contractual relationship and the like;

(v) acquisition, use or disclosure, to a third party, of a trade secret with the knowledge that the trade secret was disclosed in violation of the fiduciary duty referred to in item (iv) above or failing to know thereof due to gross negligence; and

(vi) use or disclosure, to a third party, of an acquired trade secret with the knowledge gained subsequent to its acquisition that the trade secret was disclosed in violation of the fiduciary duty referred to in item (iv) above or failing to know thereof due to gross negligence.

We can assume that the meaning or scope of misappropriation under Korean law is almost the same as those of misappropriation under American UTSA. Namely, the key points of misappropriation under Korean law include (1) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another Without express or implied consent by a person who used improper means to acquire Knowledge of the trade secret; or (3) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (i) derived from a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it; (ii) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (iii) derived from a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (4) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.

3. Remedies for Trade Secret Misappropriation


(1) Injunctive Relief

(2) Damages
   A. Actual loss (including lost profits where applicable),
   B. Unjust enrichment, and/or
   C. Reasonable royalties.

(3) Criminal Sanctions



12 Months Grace Period in Korea


Article 30 of the Korean Patent Act provides 12 months grace period for disclosed inventions. In inventor or his assignee may obtain a patent through filing an application for the disclosed invention within 12 months from the date of novelty destroying event.

The disclosure of an invention as novelty destroying event might be done by an inventor, his assignee or a 3rd party. If an inventor or his assignee disclosed the invention, they may obtain a patent under the grace period scheme. However, in case the invention was disclosed through patent publications such as A1 publication or B1 publication in any country which was filed by an inventor or his assignee, the grace period may not be applied and thus the applicant finally lost an opportunity to obtain a patent in Korea. Therefore, patent specification publications are critical exceptions to grace period under then Korean patent law.

In other hand, where a 3rd party disclosed the invention without permission of an inventor or his assignee, an inventor or his assignee may file an application for the disclosed invention within 12 months from the date of disclosure. An applicant must prove that the invention was disclosed by a 3rd party against his intention.

An applicant must submit a written document claiming grace period benefit to KIPO when filing a patent application. Further, within 30 days from the filing date, an applicant must submit evidence supporting his claims to the novelty destroying event.

BMS sued Korean pharmaceutical companies alleging patent infringement of entecavir compound patent and low dose formulation patent

Baraclude tablets are a blockbuster drug of BMS that has been sold for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus infection in Korea. BMS listed 2 patents in Green List of KFDA that is a local version of the Orange Book of US FDA. Entecavir compound is the active ingredient of Baraclude.

Korean generic companies obtained MA for generic versions to Baraclude and are ready to launch their generic products to the local market. BMS filed patent infringement lawsuits against Korean pharmaceutical companies recently.

Before BMS patent infringement lawsuits, local companies filed invalidity trials to challenge the validity of the corresponding Korean entecavir compound patent. Also, they filed trials to confirm the scope of patent right about the corresponding Korean low dose formulation patent. The invalidity case of the compound patent is pending in the IPT of KIPO. But the IPT decided that generic products do not infringe the scope of the low dose formulation patent. In appeal, the Patent Court upheld the IPT decision that low dose entecavir formulations of 0.5mg or 1.0 mg should be regarded being obvious over the prior art and that generic drug do not infringe the subject patent.

Korea has the bifurcated system that allocates decision power to separate authorities. Patent infringement issue and patent invalidity issue must be decided by two separate and independent courts. Patent infringement and invalidity challenge may occur simultaneously but two proceedings are correlated.

In the patent infringement lawsuits, defendants Korean companies will raise an affirmative defense about invalidity of entecavir compound patent. Such invalidity defense is allowed and the court may stay the infringement lawsuit proceeding on its discretion until the IPT of KIPO decides validity issue.

On the other hand, defendants are quite safe from patent infringement liability of low dose formulation patent because they had prior decisions from the IPT and the Patent Court that their products are out of the scope of the patent claims in issue.

IPT Decided One of 2 Patents on Herceptin (trastuzumab) Listed in Green List of KFDA as being Invalid

Roche launched Herceptin for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in Korea. And Celltrion, a Korean Pharmaceutical company, developed a biosimilar Herzuma to Herceptin (trastuzumab) and obtained marketing approval (MA) for a biosimilar Herzuma (trastuzumab) from KFDA on January 16, 2014. It has been approved for treatment of early and advanced (metastatic) HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer as well as advanced (metastatic) stomach cancer. Roche filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Celltrion.

Under the bifurcated system about patent invalidity challenge and patent infringement litigation, an invalidation trial against one of 2 listed Herceptin patents was filed to the IPT in KIPO rather than a court.  On May 28, 2014, the IPT decided that Korean Patent No. 1,261,749 on Herceptin is invalid due to obviousness. Korean Patent No. 1,261,749 with the expiry date of August 25, 2020 is based on PCT/US2000/023391 claiming the priority on US60/151,018 application.

The losing party, patentee, appealed the IPT decision to the Patent Court.