Remedy – Injunction and Damage Compensation

1. Permanent Injunction

The nature of a patent right is the right to exclude others. Once the patent has been held valid and infringed, the patentee is entitled to the full enjoyment and protection of the patent right. The infringer shall not be allowed to continue his infringement.

Under Korean patent law, when the infringement of a patent is found, a permanent injunction shall be automatically granted. Only in extraordinary circumstances like patent misuse or substantial injury to the public interest may a court deny a permanent injunction.

2. Preliminary Injunction (PI)

Preliminary injunction is drastic and extraordinary remedy. Thus, a court allows preliminary injunction only in extraordinary circumstances. PI may be allowed when the circumstances are met by showing a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, the existence of irreparable harm to the patent owner if a PI is not granted; the balance of hardship between the patent owner and the infringer. Further, a PI should not be against the public interest.

PI is often granted to a patentee in Korea. Under Korean patent law, the validity of a patent and its enforceability are presumed and further irreparable harm is presumed where there is reasonable likelihood of success. Therefore, preliminary injunction shall be granted when the accuser’s infringement is proved.

In contrast, in case a patentee has not practiced the patented invention within Korea, preliminary injunction will not be allowed because no irreparable harm is presumed. Further, in case it is probable that the subject patent will be invalid through invalidation proceeding, it will be hard for the patentee to obtain PI. Preliminary injunction may give full and final satisfactory remedy in advance before a main lawsuit, and can cause significant suffering to the other party. Accordingly, a PI case shall be carefully decided by a panel of three judges.

3. Damage Compensation

It is tort to infringe an IP right in Korea, too. As a civil law principle, damage of torts will be awarded for those which have been the direct and natural consequence of the defendant’s infringing activities.

Unlike U.S. courts, Korea courts never award "punitive," "exemplary" or "aggravated" damages for infringement of IP rights. It is same to all cases no matter how serious infringements are. No treble damage award is possible. And there is no willful infringement clause and thus intent or negligence is treated as being same. There are 3 ways to calculate damage.

  a. Lost Profit

Where a patentee and an infringer compete, lost profits are an appropriate remedy. Lost profits are the sum of profits that a patentee would have gained if the patent was not infringed. According to Article 128, paragraph 1 of the Korean patent act, lost profits of a patentee can be calculated by multiplying the patentee’s profit per product unit by total numbers of product that could be sold but for the infringement.

Since lost profits are not presumed, a patentee has the burden of proof. A patentee must show reasonable probability that it would have made the infringer’s sale. Patent infringement can reduce the patent owner’s profits in a number of ways. First, the infringer may divert sales from the patent owner. Second, competition from the infringer may cause the patent owner to reduce his price, and thus earn lower profits on those goods he continues to sell. A third possible effect is that the infringement causes the patentee to suffer additional costs, such as increased advertising and marketing expenditures. Courts have considered awarding damages for such asserted harms as lost future profits, injury to the patent owner’s reputation resulting from the sale of poor-quality infringing goods, and the infringer’s accelerated entry into the marketplace once the patent expires. For diverted sales, a patent owner must show demand for the patented products, absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes, manufacturing capability to exploit demand, and profit. A patentee may seek lost profits for convoyed sales but the functional relationship between a patented invention and convoyed sales must be established.

Especially, the total amount of damages is largely correlated with the profit per unit. When incremental profit (so called marginal profit or contributory profit) are used for the computation of damages, the total amount will be large. Incremental profit is the profit that the patentee could have made when he sold just one more patented product, and is the amount excluding only the variable cost from the sale price of a product. Based on the incremental profit, the patentee may receive the greatest amount of monetary remedy that he could have gained through the use of a patent.

The Korean Patent Act added another manner of presumption: when the patentee is capable of supplying products competing with the infringing product, he may presume that his lost profit is equal to the amount calculated by multiplying his profit per unit by the number of units sold by the infringer. As a rule, lost profits are measured as the difference between the profits the patent holder would have earned but for the infringing sales and the profits the patent holder actually earned. Profitability should be calculated using incremental cost, which excludes the costs that would be incurred in both the actual and but-for markets. Stated differently, the lost profits equal the difference in revenue minus the difference in costs. The difference in costs, whether expressed on a total or per unit basis, is the incremental-cost concept. The major pitfall when measuring incremental cost is that many firms allocate both fixed costs, e.g., depreciation, and common costs, e.g., marketing and administration, to their internal accounts that might be used to calculate incremental costs. Accounting and statistical analysis are often required to remove these allocations to calculate profits properly. The Supreme Court recently awarded damages based on incremental profit.

  b. Infringer’s Profits

Further a patentee may recover damages based on the infringer’s profits. According to Article 128, paragraph 2, it is possible for patentee to seek damages based on the profit of infringer. It is settled that the profit in the provision means the actual profit. There are three ways to compute the profit of the infringer in case of the presumption of the profit of the infringer to be the damage: (1) total sales minus the cost of production (2) total sales minus the cost of production, the distribution cost, general management expenses, and taxes, and (3) total sales of the infringer minus the variable cost according to the increase of production. Unlike the profit in Article 128, paragraph 1, the actual profit in this clause means the amount of money in which all costs are subtracted from the sale price. This provision presumes the profit and hence the infringer may defend himself by proving the actual profit is small.

A patentee cannot complain that the infringer operates his process inefficiently or unprofitably and should have generated greater profits by taking an alternative course. The patentee must take the infringer and actual profits made as he finds them. The maximum payment is the total profit made by the infringer. Thus, if different patentees seek accounts of profits for different infringing activities within the single business of the infringer, the total amount payable cannot exceed the total profits made.

  c. Reasonable Royalty

This method of damage calculation treats the patentee and the infringer of the patent as if they had signed a license agreement. The licensee, i.e., that infringer, has to pay the license fee that would have been agreed for such a license by reasonable contractual partners. The position of the infringing party is fundamentally no worse than that of a contractual licensee. He does not have to pay a particularly high license fee as punishment for the infringement, but instead is treated not as though he had infringed the patent but as if he had signed a license agreement with the patentee for the use of the invention.

Legal rulings have always turned away from adding "penalty surcharges" to the license fee as a sanction in response to the infringement of the patent. For this reason it is immaterial whether the party committing the infringement has done so willfully or only by negligence. This meant that the infringement of a patent represented only a minimal risk for the party committing the infringement. The least fortunate infringer, judged guilty of infringing a patent, would pay the license fee that (s)he would have had to pay if he had initially sought to obtain the approval of the patentee for the use of the invention. However, the royalty rate applied to the infringer is lower than or the same as the ones agreed upon without litigation and there is little incentive to be an honest licensee. Therefore, the conservative approach taken by the courts has been the target of severe criticism.

The reasonable royalty functions as a minimum compensation for infringement, although the statute does not expressly provide for this. The formula concerning the calculation of reasonable royalty is the total sales of defendant with respect to the infringing product multiplied by the reasonable royalty rate. Factors to be considered when determining a reasonable royalty rate are dependant upon whether plaintiff has granted similar license to third parties and at which specified rate of royalty. If the plaintiff has not provided license to third parties, then the reasonable royalty rate will be determined by the court based on assertions and evidence provided by the parties, including the official industry statistics. In sum, reasonable royalty will be determined based on the rate of other existing license contracts, the established customs of the field of commerce field that the patent pertains to, and others.

  d. Discretion of a Court in determining Damage

Under the Korean patent law, courts have discretion to decide a moderate amount of damage to prevent non-compensation to a patentee even though the infringement is found but no sufficient evidence to prove an amount of damage exists. It eases the patentee’s burden of proof.

  e. Shift of Burden to Infringer

Under the old Korean patent law, a plaintiff had to prove the amount of damage, which was extremely difficult without discovery. But the current patent law makes it much easier for a patentee to prove the amount of damage. It is possible for a patentee to calculate damage because the other requirements can be met by his information when he knows the sale quantity of the infringer.

  f. Apportionment

How to calculate the damages by apportionment is a controversial issue. An infringer only has to account for profits from the infringing products or processes. Where only part of a product infringes, profits are apportioned between those which were caused by or attributable to the use of the patented invention and those which were not. However, where the invention is the essential ingredient in the creation of the infringer’s whole product or process, it may be appropriate not to apportion.

Before apportionment the infringer may deduct from revenues allowable costs. The following costs may be deducted: relevant research and development costs; costs of construction or operating the plant or process; and for direct costs such as manufacturing and distribution costs. Income from the exploitation of any other technology results from the research and development must be deducted from the overheads.

New Supreme Court Decision on Doctrine of Equivalents in Korea

The rationales of the doctrine of equivalents in Korea are basically similar to those of the U.S. Namely, when an accused product or process performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the substantially same result of the patented invention, the accused product or process infringes the patent right.

In particular, the Korean Supreme Court held that the accused product or process infringes a patent where an element of the patented invention is substituted with another element and, if (i) the technical concepts or principle to solve the objective of the patented invention and the accused invention are the same or common; (ii) the substituted element in the accused invention performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the substantially same result of the patented invention; (iii) such substitution is obvious to an ordinarily skilled person in the art. However, the doctrine of equivalents shall not be applicable to the circumstances that (iv) the accused substitution was already known to skilled persons in the art at the time of filing an application and (v) the accused element was excluded from the claimed invention during prosecution.

On July 24, 2014, the Supreme Court further clarified the scope and meaning of the above (1) requirement of DOE; the technical concepts or principle to solve the objective of the patented invention and the accused invention must be the same or common.

The patent claimed a cutter for dry seaweed. The seaweed cutter has cutting blades laid out in a grid pattern. Seaweed is placed on top of the cutting blades and pressed from top to down and then sliding down into a container through a grid-patterned box attached to the bottom of the cutting blades. The patented invention can achieve a cutting and storing of seaweed in a single process.

The accused cutter is different from the patented cutter in which the accused cutter has moving blades that move from top to down and cut seaweed. Instead, the patented invention does not have moving blades. Except the position of blades, other technical features of the two devices are the same. Two cutters perform the same function in the substantially same way and achieve the same result.

However, the Seoul High Court denied patent infringement under DOE because the accused cutter did not meet the (1) requirement of DOE. The accused cutter cut seaweed in a different way from the patent technology; there is no the same technical principle of resolving the technical problem.

The Supreme Court vacated the lower court decision. The Court held that the "essence or core of the technical idea" must be determined between two cutters in order to apply DOE and then found that two cutters used the same technical idea because it should be the incline of the grid patterned box that allowed seaweed to be automatically stored after being cut and it is found in two cutters although two cutters employed different embodiments. The Court found that the change to position of the cutting blades was obvious. The Supreme Court decision clarified (1) requirements of DOE under the Korean patent law. In practice, patentees may have higher chance to apply DOE under the recent decision.

Joint Ownership of Patents in South Korea

Under the Korean patent law, when there are joint inventors of a single invention, each inventor is entitled to be a joint owner in the right to obtain a patent of the invention. Without any agreement to assign his right, the joint owners must file an application for a patent together. Otherwise, the application shall be rejected or the granted patent shall be invalid. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, each joint owner has an equal partial interest in the invention as a whole. When a company is an employer of an employee inventor and the employee is a co-inventor, the company shall be a joint owner of the invention through assignment.

The Korean patent law provides that joint patent owners may freely make, use and practice the patented invention without consent to the other joint owners. In this regard, each co-owner does not have the duty to account profits to the others.

However, each co-owner may not assign the partial right of the patent to a 3rd party without consent of the other co-owners. Namely a joint owner may sell his own interest in the paten only when the other joint owners consent such an assignment.

Furthermore, a joint owner may not license the patented technology to a third party based on his co-ownership of the patented invention unless he has obtained consent of the other joint owners about the license.

The Korean Patent Act has specific provisions for such restrictions of joint ownership. This principle of the Korean patent law is to protect each co-owner from an unreasonable change of co-ownership. If a joint owner may freely assign or license the jointly owned patent, other co-owners may be at the mercy of the co-owner. For example, in case a co-owner assigned his co-ownership to a large company and the other co-owner is a very small company and then a new co-owner large company may use and practice the patented technology as a whole independently without any duty of account profits to the other co-owners, the new joint may have the whole value of the patent and the small company does not have any profit.

However, joint owners may vary their rights by contract. The statutory default rule under the Korean patent law controls unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

Requirements and Procedures when a foreign applicant claims 12-months Grace Period in Korea

Based on 12 months grace period under the Korean patent law, an inventor or his assignee may obtain a patent through filing an application for any already 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. In order obtain such benefit of grace period under the Korean patent law, a foreign applicant must meet substantive and procedural requirements as follows:

1. Priority claim under the Paris Convention or PCT may not apply beyond 12 months from the first disclosure.

For example, an inventor disclosed his invention on October 1, 2013 and filed a patent application with claiming benefit of grace period on December 1, 2013 at USPTO. Later, the applicant filed a Korean patent application based on the US patent application with priority claim under the Paris Convention on December 1, 2014. The applicant may not obtain a patent in Korea because the disclosure of the invention on October 1, 2013 shall destroy the novelty of the invention filed at KIPO. Because an applicant did not file the application within 12 months from the first event of invention disclosure, he may not claim benefit of 12 months grace period. Accordingly the priority claim under the Paris Convention cannot save the lost of novelty.

Therefore, a foreign applicant must file a Korean patent application at KIPO with 12 months from the first disclosure event regardless of claiming priority under the Paris Convention or PCT. Otherwise, a foreign applicant will lose an chance to obtain a patent in Korea under 12 months grace period.

2. An applicant must disclose all and each event of invention disclosures when files a patent application at KIPO

When an inventor had disclosed his invention several times before he has filed a patent application before KIPO, the applicant must disclose all of them and request benefits of 12 months grace period for all and each events of invention disclosures. Otherwise, the unreported event may be a basis to deny the novelty of the filed invention.

For example, (1) an inventor disclosed an abstract about his invention in a brochure of a conference on October 1, 2013 and (2) gave a detailed presentation about his invention before audience in the conference on October 10, 2013 and then (3) published his article about the invention on November 1, 2013 and further (4) the organizer of the conference uploaded the inventor's presentation at an official website of the conference on November 10, 2013.

In order to be safe based on benefits of grace period under the Korean patent law, an inventor must disclose all of the above 4 events and claims benefits of 12 months grace period for all of them when he files a patent application at KIPO within October 1, 2014. For example, if an applicant did not report No. 4 event of posting his presentation at the conference website, it may be a basis for denying novelty of the invention. However, in my view, it may be possible to argue that the inventor could not know the event and did not have any intent to deceive KIPO. Accordingly an applicant may probably overcome such a hurdle but it is better to check all possible events of disclosures and report all and each of them to KIPO. On the other hand, in case an applicant did not disclose No. 2 event or No. 3 event, he cannot save his application from loss of novelty by his disclosing the invention before the filing date.

Steady Increase of Patent Applications to KIPO from Foreign Applicants

The number of patent applications in Korea has steadily increased in 5 recent years. According to statistics from KIPO, the number of patent applications in 2013 was 204,589 that was 8.6% increase compared to that of 2012. 44,894 new patent applications among them were filed by foreign applicants. It has increased by 11.7% compared with the numbers during the same period in 2012. We could observe the steady increases in the numbers of patent applications from foreign applicants by in recent 5 years that ranges from 5.8% to 11.7%.

Considering the background of such steady increases, we could observe that many Korean companies became key players in the world's major manufacturers and sellers of smartphones, semiconductors, display panels, TVs, etc. Accordingly manufacturers of parts and raw materials have critical interests in Korean market, too. Naturally they need IP protection about their businesses in Korea and have filed more patent applications in Korea.

Amendments to the Korean Patent Act from January 1, 2015

1. An applicant may file an English specification without the Korean translation

An applicant may file a provisional application in English without the Korean translation in order to obtain a patent filing number and date in Korea. The description of an invention in English does not have to be a formal patent specification. A simple literature about an invention should be sufficient if it describe all elements of an invention clearly. Under the current law, an applicant may file a provisional application in Korean without claims. Furthermore, an applicant may file a formal application in English without the Korean translation in order to obtain a patent filing number and date in Korea. Within 14 months from the earliest priority date, an applicant must file the Korean translation and claims.

2. 32 months deadline for submitting the Korean translation for national entry of PCT application

Under the current Korean law, a PCT applicant must enter a Korean national phase of a PCT application through filing documents for entering a Korean national phase of a PCT application that includes the Korean translation of a PCT specification. However, under the new law, a PCT applicant may request a one-month extension of time for submitting the Korean translation and thus may submit the Korean translation within 32 months from the earliest priority date. But, an applicant may not extend the 31 months deadline for national entry of a PCT application in Korea.

3. An applicant may correct Korean translation errors based on an original foreign language specification

Under the current Korean law, any amendment beyond the scope of the Korean translation filed shall be regarded as new matter even though the amendment has been based in the original specification in foreign language. Accordingly it is critical once there is any translational error in the Korean translation. The revised new law allows that an applicant may correct any translational errors based on the original foreign language specification and the PCT specification in foreign language.

Criminal Sanctions on Trade Secret Infringements in Korea

Trade secret Infringers may be prosecuted as criminals in addition to civil litigations. The Korean UCPA stipulates that anyone who illegally acquires trade secret of others or uses or discloses to a third party a misappropriated trade secret may be imprisoned up to ten (10) years or fined in an amount of KRW50,000,000 (approximately US$50,000) or two (2) to ten (10) times of the monetary gains. The fine may amount to the 10 times of the value of the stolen trade secret. In Hyundai Motors case, two former engineers were punished to 3.5 years imprison and US$3 million fines respectively.

Further, the Korean Supreme Court held that the act of divulging trade secret to the competitor for the purpose of gaining economic benefit by former employees shall be punished as criminal violation of the fiduciary duty under the Criminal Code. Besides UCPA, trade secrets misappropriations may be prosecuted under the criminal code, too.

In addition to criminal sanction on individuals, companies may be punished by fine that is KRW50,000,000 (approximately US$50,000) or two (2) to ten (10) times of the value of the stolen trade secrets or monetary gains of infringers.

Criminal Procedure of South Korea

1. Initiation of Investigation

Investigation is initiated upon discovery of the possibility that a crime may have been committed. The ultimate responsibility in all investigative procedures is in the hands of the prosecutor. Based on collected evidences, the prosecutor assess the validity of the judgment that a crime has occurred, and take appropriate measures upon this ascertainment.

2. Booking, Arrest & Detention

Booking denotes the formation of a criminal case after initiation. An individual subject to investigation becomes a criminal suspect once a criminal charge has been determined by the investigation agency. In principle, prosecutors or police officers must obtain a warrant issued by a judge to arrest a suspect; however, there exist certain exceptions to these warrant requirements in cases that necessitate "Emergency Arrest" and "Arrest of Flagrant Offender". The prosecutor may detain the arrested suspect with a warrant of detention issued by the judge upon request by the prosecutor within 48 hours from the time of arrest. A suspect may request a preliminary hearing prior to detention, and an arrested or detained suspect may request a review of legality to the court. Through such process, the suspect may be released.

3. Prosecution

Suspects are indicted in cases when there is a prosecutor’s decision that such suspects must stand trial. On the other hand, prosecutors may dismiss a case without indictment. The ground such as ambiguous location of the suspect, in which case further proceedings are unfeasible, will lead to a stay of prosecution.

4. Trial and Sentencing

A judge hears trial upon motions filed by prosecutors. Sentencing occurs when defendants are found guilty of their charges. The punishment may include death penalty, imprisonment and fine, etc.

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

Statistics of KIPO - IP Applications Trend Over Three Years in Korea

Statistics of KIPO - IP Applications Trend Over Three Years in Korea

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.

Remicade v. Remsima - Trademark Dispute between J&J and Celltrion

Remicade is a monoclonal antibody to treat RA. This blockbuster biopharmaceutical product was developed and has been sold by Centocor that is one of J&J groups.

A Korean company Celltrion developed a biosimilar product to Remicade and obtained a Market Approval (MA) from KFDA in 2013. Further Celltrion filed an application on their biosimilar product to EMA and has been trying to obtain MA, too.

On the other hand, Celltrion filed Remsima as their trademark with KIPO. J&J opposed to the TM application but failed in opposition. And Celltrion succeeded to register Remsima as their trademark for their new biosimilar products.

J&J filed an invalidation trial to Remsima TM registration before the IPT within KIPO. But Celltrion prevailed on the IPT proceeding. The losing party J&J appealed against the IPT decision to the Korean Patent Court. The two subject trademarks in dispute are shown below.

On August 18, 2014, the Patent Court rejected J&J's appeal finally. The Patent Court held that Remsima TM registration shall be valid because Remsima is not similar to Remicade in their sounds, shapes and meanings. The losing party J&J may appeal to the Supreme Court again.

Statistics on New IP Applications Filed to KIPO in 2013

KIPO published the annual report of 2013 that includes statistics of filing numbers.

In 2013, KIPO received 204,589 new patent applications that is 8.3% increase to 2012 year; 10,968 new utility model applications that is 11.7% decrease to 2012; 66,940 new design applications that is 6.0% increase; and 147,667 new trademark applications that is 11.4% increase to 2012. 

In total, KIPO received 430,164 new applications with an 8.4% growth compared to the total number of 2012. 

Reverse Payment Agreement violates Antitrust Law in Korea: the First case decision by the Korean Supreme Court for GSK v. KFTC case on Feb. 27, 2014

1. Background

GSK owned a Korean patent for ondansetron, antiemetic drug and sold with a tradename as Zofran. Dong-A Pharmaceutical Co. developed a generic version of ondansetron and received a cease and demand letter from GSK. Both parties started lawsuits but soon signed a settlement agreement and withdrew lawsuits.

2. Settlement of Patent Infringement Litigations

By a Sale & Supply Agreement for ondansetron between both parties, GSK granted Dong-A to sell the product to large sized hospitals. Instead, Dong-A shall neither make nor sell any competing medications including ondansetron to Zofran. GSK agreed to pay large amount of money to Dong-A by cash every year for 5 years. Further GSK promised to offer additional significant amount as incentive for high sales performance.

3. KFTC investigation and lawsuits

KFTC investigated GSK/Dong-A patent settlement case and decided that the settlement was a reverse payment agreement that violated the Antitrust Act of Korea. In particular, KFTC found them violating Art. 19 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (MRFTA) and fined GSK about US$2 million and Dong-A US$1.5 million.

4. The Supreme Court Decision

GSK raised an appeal to KFTC's decision to the Seoul High Court but the court confirmed the KFTC decision. And GSK further appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

GSK argued that the settlement was within the scope of his patent right. As they pointed out, Art.59 of MRFTA (Korean version of antitrust law) has provision that “This Act shall not apply to any act which is deemed as a justifiable exercise of the right under the Copyright Act, the Patent Act, the Utility Model Act, the Design Protection Act or the Trademark Act.”

However, the Supreme Court rejected GSK's argument. The court opined that a settlement with reverse payment violates antitrust law if a patentee may maintain his monopoly by the reverse payment and thus affects adverse effect on fair and free competition in the related market. In the decision, the court suggested several factors in finding any violation or liability. Those can include the amounts of reverse payment to the opposing party and anticipated profit of the patent owner, patent litigation cost, time span and period for non-compete, etc.

On the other hand, the Seoul High Court stated in their decision that when the subject patent is obviously invalid or the competing party has not infringed the patent, any settlement with reverse payment shall be regarded as being anticompetitive and shall be violation of antitrust law.

Korea is scheduled to implement the patent and drug MA linkage system that is a Korean version of the Hatch-Waxman Act system from March 15, 2015. Under the new system, the first generic company may obtain 12-month market exclusivity. Such exclusivity may cause motives or incentives for reverse payments between the patent owner and the first generic. In order to avoid antitrust violation issue, accordingly, it is recommendable to closely review the first decision of the Supreme Court on the reverse payment case.

Patent Marketing Approval Linkage

The FTA between Korea and USA includes provisions regarding the patent drug market approval (MA) linkage. Pursuant to the KORUS FTA, Korea has to fully implement patent drug market approval linkage from March 15, 2015. The key changes are summarized below.

1. Green List – the Korean version of Orange Book

When a company of a new drug application (NDA) has obtained a drug market approval (MA) from KFDA, the NDA holder must list patent information in the patent list (“Green List”) of KFDA. The Green List is similar to the Orange Book in the U.S., but is not the same. The deadline to list is 30 days from the receipt date of MA.

Unlike the Orange Book in the U.S., a NDA holder must list patents with the claim-by-claim basis in the Green List. Therefore, an applicant must specify every claim that covers the approved drug product and further an applicant must submit detailed explanation between each claim and the approved drug to KFDA.

2. ANDA Applicant’s Certification regarding Listed Patents

Like the HWA, an applicant of a generic drug application (ANDA) must submit a certification regarding listed patents of Green List to KFDA. The patent certification is similar to those of HWA. For example, an ANDA applicant must file a Para. IV certification if he wants to launch a generic drug before the expiry date of listed patents. In such a certification, the generic drug applicant must provide a detailed statement demonstrating that the listed patent is invalid or that the generic drug does not infringe the listed patent.

3. Notice to an NDA holder and a Patentee

Like the HWA, an ANDA applicant with Para. IV certification must notify the fact that an application for generic drug approval has been filed and the filing date of the application to the product approval holder and patent owner within 7 days of the application filing date. The obligation to notice will apply to an ANDA applicant who will launch their product before the expiry date of term of the listed patent. Otherwise, this provision does not apply to generic applicants who intend to launch their drug after the expiration of the listed patent.

4. 12-Month Stay on Generic Drug Entry

Within 45 days from the receipt date of the notice, the Patentee may file: a patent infringement action or a scope confirmation trial before the Korea Intellectual Property Tribunal (KIPT) against the generic drug. Further, the patentee/NDA holder may request KFDA to take an action stay generic drug entry for 12 months from the receipt date of the notice from an ANDA applicant. Such stay shall y apply only once to each generic applicant.

5. First Generic's 12-Month Marketing Exclusivity

The first applicant may obtain first generic marketing exclusivity for 12 months over other generics. The first applicant for this marketing exclusivity means : (a) to be the first filer of ANDA application or skinny (paper) NDA applications that are similar to 505(b)(2) applications in USA; and (b) to be successful in obtaining an IPT decision or a court decision from challenging actions against listed patents including a scope confirmation trial or invalidation action. The actions must be filed before filing a generic approval application.

6. Forfeiture of 12-Month Marketing Exclusivity

The first generic's marketing exclusivity shall be forfeited if the ANDA applicant failed to obtain MA within 12 months from the filing date; or failed to launch generic within 2 months from the date that the generic may be marketed.

7. Substantial Differences from the HWA system of USA

The patent MA linkage system in Korea may share basic principle with the HWA system of the U.S. Upon reviewing the Bill to the Drug Act and the draft of KFDA regulations, however, we can find that many details will be quite different from those of HWA. In order to grasp practical implications, it is better to compare two systems in detail after the Korean version has been fixed. The FTA of Korea and U.S. set the deadline to implement a full system of patent MA linkage in Korea: March 15, 2015. Therefore, we will certainly have final versions of law provisions and regulations within this year. We will provide you with them when they are available.

Benefits on Prior Art Search to Korean Language Documents in ICT Fields

Korea becomes one of the largest pools of patent publications in the world. In every year, KIPO receives over 350,000 domestic patent applications with specifications written in Korean. Furthermore, Korea already had the largest number of patent applications per year in the world in several technology fields.

1. Market Trend

 a. Mobile Phone

Samsung extended its lead in the overall mobile phone market as well, selling more than one in four phones worldwide in the third quarter of this year. While Apple’s market share in the worldwide mobile phone market increased slightly, the pricing of the new iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c in both mature and emerging markets failed to entice consumers as hoped. The table shows a recent market trend of smartphone sales.

 b. Embedded OS

In the smartphone operating-system market, Android continued to dominate the industry with more than 80 percent of the market's share in the third quarter of 2013. And, while Apple's iOS and BlackBerry suffered a drop in their worldwide market shares, Microsoft’s Windows Phone showed significant growth, albeit from a low base.

 c. Digital / Smart TV

Samsung retained its leadership position in the global Smart TV market amid the competitive holiday season of 2013 with a 26.4 percent share as TV vendors rapidly deploy Smart TV capabilities to garner higher average selling prices (ASPs), according to the latest Strategy Analytics research, “Smart TV Market Share Report Q4 2013″.

Samsung’s nearest competitor, LG, registered a 14.4 percent market share of Smart TV shipments. Although Sony ships fewer Flat Panel TV (FPTV) units than LG, it has been aggressive in its efforts to add Smart TV capabilities to nearly all models it currently offers, which helped Sony capture another 14.3 percent of the Smart TV market.

Samsung and LG have done well in growing their overall FPTV market shares while also refreshing their line-ups with more high value-added products like Smart TVs that have slowed ASP decline at these two companies. Not coincidentally, both companies witnessed a surge in Smart TV market share in the same period.

2. Patent Applications Trend in Recent 5 Years

 a. Mobile Phone/Embedded OS Fields

 b. Digital TV Field (excluding display panel technology) 

3. Korean Patent Documents as Prior Art Pool

 

Accordingly, it is certainly necessary to search and review patent publications in Korean for prior art searches. Nonetheless, it is really difficult to fully understand Korean texts because Korean is a language far remote from English. Usually it has been our experience that we can often find a critical prior art written in Korean that was never considered during patent examination in EPO or USPTO.

Search is not simple. Rather it requires expertise in strategy and deep understanding of technology. We have been entrusted for prior art search by large companies who have multinational patent litigations. Our experienced experts can provide high value-added search strategy and results for analyzing and compiling of patent database information. We have a lot of search and analysis experiences in smart phones, digital TV, video data processing, etc.

Statistics re Korean Patent Applications from WIPO world IP indicators 2012

In 2011, KIPO received about 180,000 patent applications. Among them, 23%, 40,890 Korean patent applications were filed by foreign applicants. Korea was ranked the 5th in the world in the number of patent applications by foreign applicants.

Patent Office	Non-Resident Filing	Total Filing	Percentage
KR	40,890	178,924	23%
Japan	55,030	342,610	16%
China	110,583	526,422	21%
Germany	12,458	85,674	14%

<Data Source: WIPO, World IP Indicators, 2012> 

In addition, 12,139 Korean patent applications – accounting for approximately 25% of the 40,000 Korean patent applications by foreign companies – were filed by American applicants.

Origin	Office
	US	EP	CN	JP	KR
US	-	34,987	28,457	23,414	12,139
CN	10,545	2,548	-	1,401	752
JP	85,184	20,568	39,231	-	15,234
KR	27,289	4,889	8,129	5,007	-

As for PCT routes, KIPO is highly trusted internationally. Further, KIPO become one of the most important offices because KPO has been appointed as the PCT International Searching Authority for about 1/3 of the U.S. PCT applications.

Year	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
PCT applications in  USA	54,042	51,642	45,627	45,008	48,596
PCT International Search by KIPO	2,735	11,371	13,356	13,319	15,168

For example, Major US companies who appointed KIPO as their PCT International Searches in 2012 include Intel, MS, HP, Google, 3M, Hughes, Applied Materials, Caterpillar, Kimberly-Clark.

Functional Language in Claim

In general, a claim with functional language is very often objected by the Examiner in Korean patent practice. Examiners usually consider functional wordings or expressions used in claims rendering the scope or constitution of the claimed invention unclear and indefinite. Further, they seem to surely have the opinion that such functional expressions make the scope of the functional language claim to be unduly broader than the subject matter supported by the specification.

However, functional wordings or functional expressions are surely allowed under Korean patent practice when no alternative and effective expressions that can clearly and definitely describe the claimed subject matter; the meanings of the functional expressions are fully supported by the detailed description of the invention; and the functional expressions do not pose any problems in defining the scope of the claimed invention. For example, for the specifications of electronic technology field, functional wordings are usually and often allowed in claims. An examiner who is in charge of examinations for chemistry, biotechnology or pharmaceutical patent applications, has relatively high tendency to reject functional language claims.

Recently the Supreme Court held that the scope of protection for an invention is limited to the embodiments clearly specified in the detailed description and drawings when means-plus-function features are exceptionally allowed. The detailed descriptions and drawings of the invention are critical factors to be considered in narrowly interpreting functional claims for purposes of determining the scope of protection. Therefore, it is advisable to keep in mind that many examples should be described in the detailed description when the applicant files an application for a functional claim.

Denied Patent Term Extension for Novartis' Exelon® Patch in Korea

Novartis' Exelon® Patch has been used to treat mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer's type and mild to moderate dementia associated with Parkinson's disease. The active ingredient is rivastigmine.

Novartis obtained the first MA for Exelon® Capsule and the second MA for Exelon® Patch in Korea. Exelon® Patch uses a new formulation that allows rivastigmine to be administered in a transdermal therapeutic system (TTS).

Novartis listed two patents in the Green List (http://medipatent.kfda.go.kr) of KFDA pursuant to the linkage system of patent and market approval. The first patent is Korean Patent No. 133,686 that claims chemical compounds including rivastigmine, its pharmaceutical use. The term of the compound patent expired on December 23, 2012. The second patent is Korean Patent No. 569,051 that claims inventions of TTS formulation. The second patent will expire on January 8, 2019.

Novartis has another patent in issue that claims rivastigmine compound for transdermal administration and compositions for them. The patent in issue is Korean Patent No. 121,596 that has actually lmost the same scope of protection that of the basic compound patent of Korean Patent No. 133,686. The background between two patents is somewhat complicated because Korean Patent No. 121,596 stems from transient measure in 1987.

The Patentee and NDA holder, Novartis filed a petition for patent term extension of the basic compound patent on April 23, 2012. In Korea, the patent term extension system was first introduced on July 1, 1987. Under the 1987 Act that applied to the patent in issue, a petition for patent term extension may be filed only during the last three (3) years of the original term of the patent. Upon filing a PTE request, the term of the subject patent shall be extended automatically and shall be terminated on the expiry date retroactively in case the petition has been denied.

KIPO denied Novartis’ petition. Novartis appealed to the Seoul Administrative Court. On September 26, 2013, the court rejected Novartis’ arguments and denied PTE for Exelon Patch patent. The Patentee and NDA holder, Novartis appealed the lower court decision to the Seoul High Court again. The current PTE system has been based on 1990 amendment and the first PTE regulations of 1987 are quite different from those of the current PTE regulations. The PTE regulations of 1987 that must applied to Exelon Patch case had much more narrow scope than those of the current regulations in subject patents and gourds for PTE. Exelon Patch falls in such unfortunate cases during transient period between 1987 and 1990.

Physicochemical Data Addition to the Specification during Prosecution

In general, the specification for a new chemical compound should describe physicochemical data of the claimed compound to such an extent that persons skilled in the art could clearly understand, recognize and reproduce the invention without any additional specific knowledge. However, as for addition of physicochemical data during prosecution, the Patent Court has somewhat differentiated a new compound invention from a new medicinal use invention. The Patent Court held that adding physicochemical data through an amendment does not constitute new matter if examples of a process for preparing claimed chemical compounds are described in detail in the specification. In principle, Korean patent practice requires that all patent applications for novel chemical compounds include physicochemical data in its original specification so as to confirm the production of the compounds. Physicochemical data refers to element analysis data, NMR data, melting point, boiling point, refraction rate, ultraviolet or infrared spectrum, viscosity, crystal type, color or the like. In case a specification fails to contain these data, the application was rejected on the grounds of (i) being an incomplete invention or (ii) failing to meet the description requirement.

The Patent Court decision is significant in that it somewhat relaxes the strict standard applied to all chemical compound inventions that are without physicochemical data. Here is an example. A patent application for novel chemical compounds was rejected by KIPO on the ground that the specification failed to meet the description requirement for a specification. In response, the applicant filed an amendment by incorporating physicochemical data on the claimed compounds, such as structural formulae, melting points and NMR data, into the specification. KIPO rejected the amendment on the ground that the incorporated physicochemical data constituted new matter. The issue was whether the physicochemical data later incorporated into the specification were essential to the confirmation of the production of the claimed compounds, in addition to the initial disclosure in the specification. The Patent Court found that the physicochemical data were not necessary since the production of the claimed compounds was confirmed from the initial disclosure based on the following: (1) chemical names and molecular formulae of substituents for the claimed compounds described in the specification can confirm structural formulae, molecular weights and chemical formulae of the claimed compounds; (2) the description "by crystallization" confirms that the compounds produced are in a solid state; and (3) reaction conditions and processes for preparing the claimed compounds are described in detail to be easily reproduced. The Patent Court has thus held that if the production of the claimed compounds can be adequately confirmed from the initial disclosure in the specification, adding such data to the specification does not constitute new matter.