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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Really Strict Description Requirement on Pharmacological Effect in Korea

In principle, the pharmacological effect should be described to such an extent that persons skilled in the art could clearly understand, recognize and reproduce the invention without any additional specific knowledge in the specification for a medicinal use invention at the filing stage. It is paramount to understand that under Korean patent practice the specification for pharmaceuticals or medicinal use inventions must quantitatively describe their pharmacological effects. The Korea Supreme Court specifically held that (1) if a pharmacological mechanism by which a certain pharmacological effect is provided has been clearly known, a simple description of the pharmacological effect would suffice; however, (2) in case such a pharmacological mechanism has not been known, the specification should include quantitative experimental data or the specific development of confirmation the pharmacological effect, i.e., when specific experiments were conducted, experimental methods, experimental results or the like, so that others could also confirm such a pharmacological effect.

For example, a new pharmaceutical composition with an enhanced anti-emetic effect in which the composition comprises two known anti-emetic agents, i.e., ondansetron and dexamethasone was claimed but the specification only described in connection with the pharmacological effect of the claimed composition that “the anti-emetic properties of one anti-emetic agent (i.e., ondansetron) are enhanced by administering with the second anti-emetic agent (i.e., dexamethasone).” No quantitative data supporting the enhanced effect was included in the original specification. The application was finally rejected on the ground that the specification violated the description requirement and that the claimed invention had not been completed.

Furthermore, it is not permitted to add quantitative pharmacological data to the specification through an amendment during prosecution. For example, there was a real case that an applicant submitted a declaration which was prepared before the application filing date, describing experimental data supporting the synergistic effect of the composition during the examination and trial proceedings. In that case, KIPO and the Patent Court did not allow the applicant to add data based on the ground that the addition of experimental data is new matter to the specification. Therefore, it is required to have such data or descriptions contained within the original specification at the filing stage.

Patent Term Extension (PTE) Based on MA for Drug Inventions in Korea

1. History of Changes

The patent term extension system was first introduced in Korea on July 1, 1987. Under the 1987 Act, a petition for patent term extension may be filed only during the last three (3) years of the original term of the patent. Under the new 1990 Act, however, a petition for patent term extension may be filed within three (3) months from the date of the approval and six (6) months prior to the expiration date. The current law is basically the same as that of 1990.

Some Changes to the current patent term extension system went into effect on April 3, 2013. The key change to the current system is limiting the number of PTE instances from multiple available chances to only one. Under the current PTE system in Korea, PTE may be available only to the "first" regulatory approval for "a new chemical entity."

2. Subject Patent and Procedures

A patent is eligible for term extension if the patent is related to an approved medicinal or agricultural product, if the patent was unable to be practiced after grant due to pharmaceutical or agricultural regulatory approval requirements. Such a patent should claim a compound, composition indicating use, process of manufacturing, formulation for (1) an invention relating to a drug which requires a product approval under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act ("PAA"); or (2) an invention relating to an agrochemical which must be registered under the Agrochemical Management Act ("AMA"),

Only registered patentee may apply for patent term extension to KIPO. If the patent right is jointly owned, all the patentees must jointly apply for an extension of the term.

An application for patent term extension must be submitted within three months from the date of the approval under the PAA or from the date of the registration under the AMA. The application, however, may not be submitted less than six months prior to the expiration of the original patent term. Also, a petition for patent term extension may not be filed after the expiration of the patent term. An application for patent term extension should be supported with evidence to show the reason for the extension.

3. Period and Number of Patent Term Extensions

The term of a patent can be extended only once. In case a product approval (or registration) is sought for multiple patents, the term is extended for each patent. However, in case multiple product approvals (or registrations) are sought for a single patent, the term is extended only for the first approval (or registration).

Prior to the current law, even an approval for a combination product whose components had been previously approved by KFDA could be the basis for PTE. In addition, the approval for a second use of an approved drug could also be the basis for PTE, since the approval was regarded as the "first" approval for the new use. Further, in some cases, even an approval for a new formulation comprising an approved active ingredient could be the basis for PTE, if the new formulation was not simply different in the dose of the active ingredient but was a different administration form compared to the previously approved drug (e.g., injection vs. tablet). However, under the current PTE regulation, PTE may be available only to the "first" regulatory approval for "a new chemical entity."

The period of PTE shall be the total length of non-working time to obtain authorization or registration under provisions of the PAA or AMA to work a patented invention. For example, for drugs, the period commencing from either the approval of a protocol for clinical testing from the government authority after obtaining a conditional approval to manufacture for clinical testing or the date the patent is registered, whichever is later; to the date that the final approval to market.

The maximum patent term extension obtainable is five (5) years regardless of whether the actual period of non-working caused by the statutory requirements under the relevant Act exceeds five years.

4. Appeal to the IPT and the Patent Court

If an examiner of KIPO rejects the petition or application for patent term extension, the applicant or petitioner may appeal to the IPT of KIPO. The appeal must be filed within thirty days from the date a certified copy of the rejection is served to the applicant or his agent. On the other hand, a 3rd party may challenge PTE through Invalidation Trial at the IPT of KIPO. If a losing party in the IPT proceedings wants to appeal against the decision of IPT, the party may bring a lawsuit to revoke the IPT decision to the Patent Court within thirty days from the date of receiving the decision.

Benefits on Utility Model Applications in Korea: Valuable addition

In addition to patents, a further form of IP protection in Korea is a utility model registration. A UM is called as a petit invention that does not have the same level of inventive step as patentable inventions.

In general a UM provides the same remedies for infringement such as injunction, damage compensation, criminal sanction, etc. But the duration of a UM protection is 10 years from the filing date. So UM is intended to the invention that needs protection in shorter time frame than can be obtained by patents.

In several jurisdiction, a UM can be obtained without substantive examination on novelty and inventive step for IPR. However, in Korea a UM must be registered to be IPR through substantial examination of novelty and inventive steps.

The key benefit of a UM lies in the lower level of inventive step. A UM can often be obtained for innovations that are only different to know technology. For example, an invention can be a UM while it may not necessarily meet the criteria for patentability. That means the standard for inventive step (non-obviousness) is often much lowered.

As for official fees and attorney fees, the UM protection is less expensive than the protection provided by patents. However, the protection period of 10 years is much shorter than 20 years of a patent. Therefore, an applicant should apply for a utility model in case the life cycle of the invention is short.

In sum, a UM is quick, cheap and easy to obtain than a patent. But a UM provides the same remedy for infringement as a patent such as injunction and damage compensation. Accordingly a UM can provides cost effective form of IP protection than patent in Korea.

Filing a Divisional Application to Broaden Scope of Claim

Under the Korean patent law, it is not allowed to file a continuation application. Furthermore, after a notice of grant has been issued, it is not available to amend claims, and an applicant is only able to correct typo errors or to narrow claim scope. Any extension of the scope of protection by amendment after grant is not allowed.

The scope of a claim must be narrow enough to be novel and non-obvious over the prior arts. On the other hand, however, claims should be infringed by the competitor’s products, services or processes and thus the scope of claims must be broad enough to cover competitor’s product or process. Even after grant, an applicant may want to have a chance to change the scope of protection.

A divisional application can play a key role for this purpose because an applicant may prepare a new set of claims having broader scope of protection than those of original application. A divisional application can be tricky. It must be differentiated from the original application in the scope of claims. But the same specification can be used for a divisional application. And more than one divisional application can be filed based on an original application.

Substantive examination of a divisional application must be requested with fee for further prosecution. Request for the examination of divisional application may be filed within five years from a filing date of an original application.

In conclusion, therefore, through filing divisional applications, applicants can strategically obtain additional patents for broader scope of protection than those of a parent patent application; or build a patent portfolio, which means more proper and various forms of claims that can be designed to cover competitors’ products, services, or processes after monitoring them for 5 years at maximum.

Expedited Examination for Green Technology Patent Application

KIPO provided accelerated examination system for green technology patent application. It is to examine green technology patent application more expeditiously than normal track examination as well as accelerated track for other technology patent applications.

Korea enacted the Low-Carbon Green Growth Basic Act to promote new developments with low carbon and green growth. Under the new law, the government issues certification of green tech or financial aid to companies who are involved in green technology. Any inventions generated by such projects are eligible for the expedited examination. These include solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, wave energy, biofuels, energy storage technologies such as advanced batteries, other renewable energy techs. Also, it includes carbon capture and storage technologies, LED lighting, etc.

According to KIPO, an application may obtain examination result as the first office action within Ione (1) month from the request. It is really short time while it takes about 17 months on average to have the first OA for an ordinary application. In case an application is finally rejected and an applicant has appealed, the case will be processed as an accelerated appeal proceeding as well. The outcome of appeal will be provided within four months. Under normal appeal trials, it takes about ten months to be decided.

In order to request such expedited examination for green tech patent application, an applicant must submit a search report to KIPO. The prior art search report should be made from one of the official prior art search organizations designated by KIPO that includes Korea Institute of Patent Information, WIPS and IP Solution.

So far, examination results have been given within one month in all but a few cases that failed to satisfy the super-accelerated examination prerequisites. The fastest case to date took only 11 days from application to registration.

Tips for Saving Cost in Korea

There are several ways to save the cost of prosecuting a patent application and maintaining once it has been granted. And the key to considerably lowering the expense is to reduce the number of claims by incorporating multiple claims.

There are three ways in which reducing the number of claims can help save cost. First, an applicant can save cost during substantive examination, where the applicant must pay the total amount of US$37 multiplied by the number of claims in addition to the official fee of US$121. Second, once the patent has been granted, the applicant can reduce the amount of annuities, where they are charged based on the basic fee of US$36 multiplied by the number of granted claims in addition to the official fee of US$42. Lastly, the applicant can save the cost of translating the claims and the costs of prosecution and maintenance.

Much like EPO and JPO, multiple dependent sub-claims are permissible under Korean patent law. And for PCT route applications, it is recommendable to redraft claims to reduce the number of claims by using multiple dependent claims before starting the international phase.

But the Korean Rule of claim dependency is different from that of the EPO and the USPTO. According to the Korean Regulation, “No claim referring to two or more claims shall refer to another dependent claim to which two or more claims are referred.” This is to avoid high complexity caused by limitless dependent sub-claims. Therefore, the number of claims must be reduced within the limitation of the Rule in Korea.

In closing, an applicant can effectively reduce the number of claims without altering the scope of claims, and accordingly is able substantially to cut the cost of prosecuting an application and maintaining the granted patent.

Check Points & Actions Must Be Considered Before Enforcement Actions

Patented claims must be valid and infringed in theory. However such claims are not common in reality. Accordingly a patentee must check strength of his patent before enforcing his patent against accused infringers. To be a valid patent claim, it should be strong enough to sustain invalidity challenges. The scope of the claim must be narrow enough to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art. On the other hand, a claim should be infringed by the competitor’s product or process. For this purpose, the scope of a claim must be broad enough to cover competitor’s product or process. These are contradictory and it is really hard to achieve desirable balance between two opposites.

Before filing a patent infringement lawsuit, it is desirable for a patentee to check strength of each patented claim based on thorough prior art search. Usually, it is necessary to fix any errors in issued patents, protect claims from possible invalidity challenges through amending claims to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art; and further pursue claims directed to competitor’s products or process if possible.

Two ways are available to amend patented claims after granting a patent in Korea. Before a patent infringement action, a patentee may amend claims as precautionary measure through ex parte proceeding at the IPT of KIPO. Namely, the first way is an independent petition to request amendment as like re-issue request in the U.S. Actually, Korea use a different terminology of “correct” for granted patents rather than “amend” for pending application before grant. It is to differentiate from each other because two terms do not have the same meaning.

The second option to amend a patented claim is correlated with an invalidity proceeding. During invalidity proceeding, a patentee may request to amend granted claims as a defense. It is very common to file a motion to correct patents during invalidity proceeding. This is inter partes proceedings between a patentee and a challenger and consolidated in invalidity proceeding. Both parties may argue whether or not such amendment to be allowed.

A patentee may amend granted claims of a patent within the scope of original disclosure and within the scope of protection of the patent as granted. In reality, post grant corrections of claims are allowed within a very limited scope. The correction must be made to (1) narrow a claim, (2) correct typological errors, or (3) clarify ambiguous description. The correction must not broaden or alter the scope of the patent right.

Recent Developments of KIPO Examination Capability

According to WIPO statistics, Korea has been ranked No. 4 in the number of patent filings with KIPO, and No. 5 in the number of PCT application filings in the recent several years. KIPO announced that they achieved one of the fastest examinations in the world. KIPO has over 1,000 members including about 700 patent examiners. Among the patent examiners, nearly 40% of the examiners have doctorate degrees and the others are well qualified as they passed a high standard national examination.

KIPO has been serving as both an international search authority and an international preliminary examination authority for international applications under the PCT since January 1, 2006. The USPTO, which files the largest number of PCT applications in the world, has designated KIPO as a competent international searching and examination authority for international applications filed at the USPTO under the PCT. The USPTO decision can be interpreted as recognition that KIPO’s examination capabilities meet world standards. According to KIPO, their fees are much less than those of the USPTO and the EPO.

Applicants can compare the quality of examination, costs and conveniences of each patent office to conduct international searches and preliminary examinations of PCT applications. According to KIPO, Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Google, 3M and Kimberly-Clark have used KIPO as their PCT International Search Agency.

Under the circumstances, foreign applicants may obtain a search or examination report within ten months after filing a patent application in Korea. We believe that the applicant, like Microsoft Corporation, might benefit from KIPO’s highly qualified and speedy examination capabilities.

Basics on Claims under Korean Patent Law

1. Description requirement

Article 42, paragraph 4 of the Patent Act stipulates: "claims shall be supported by the detailed description of the invention and shall define the invention clearly and concisely." Claims must be supported by the detailed description of the invention. That means that the scope of each claim must be identical or equivalent to the subject matter described in the detailed description. Thus, an applicant should draft a specification to include a wide variety of examples with respect to the claimed invention.

KIPO maintains a rather strict attitude towards the support requirement through its narrow interpretation of the scope to be supported. As a practical strategy, a divisional application rather than an amendment of claims may be used to secure the broader scope of the protection and avoid prosecution estoppel. But, because it is required that the scope of a divisional application be within the scope of the original specification, in order to secure a broad scope of protection the original specification should include sufficient examples and the descriptions of its equivalents to support the claimed subject matter.

2. Claim Interpretation

  All Elements Rule

The scope of a patent is defined by the elements of a claim. It is well settled that each element in a claim is deemed material to defining the scope of the patented invention. Therefore, only when every element defined in a claim is found in an accused product or process, the accused product or process literally infringes the patent right.

  Doctrine of Equivalents

It has been long time for the Patent Court and the Supreme Court to adopt the doctrine of equivalents as a part of Korean patent law for interpreting claims.

The rationales of the doctrine of equivalents in Korea are similar to those of the U.S. Thus, it is true that if the 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 infringes the patent in Korea.

In particular, the 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.

  Prosecution History Estoppel

Based on the doctrine of equivalents, a patentee cannot regain his rights to any elements that were abandoned through an amendment or a response during prosecution. For example, when an element is excluded through an amendment in order to secure novelty and non-obviousness in response to the examiner’s rejection, an invention with an equivalent element is outside the scope of the patent.

The Supreme Court held that prosecution history estoppel should be applied in view of specification, opinions of an examiner from filing of the application to issuance of a patent and the intent of an applicant as indicated in the amendments and arguments during prosecution. Furthermore, in a patent containing more than one claim, the prosecution history of each claim should be independently reviewed to decide whether certain subject matter was intentionally excluded from the scope of the claim.

Basics of Patent Prosecution Process in Korea

Korea has the first-to-file rule. All unexamined applications are automatically published after 18 months from the filing date in Korea or the earliest priority date in a foreign country. In addition, after a patent application is granted and the patent is registered, the granted specification shall be published. As a third party observation, once an unexamined patent specification has been published, any party may submit any relevant information relating to the patentability of the application to KIPO in order to prevent granting a patent thereof. The third party may not reveal their indent through a straw man action.

In other side, an applicant may warn in writing an alleged infringer about possible infringement of the claimed invention after his application has been published. And the applicant may obtain reasonable compensation of damage from the alleged infringer. A reasonable amount of compensation will be determined from the date of receipt of the warning letter. The compensation, however, can be collected only after the registration of the patent application

A patent application will be examined only when an applicant requests the examination of the application within 5 years of the filing date in Korea or the international filing date for a PCT route application. If no request for examination is made by the deadline, the application is deemed to have been withdrawn.

A registered patent may be invalidated only through an invalidation proceeding in KIPO. Because the IPT in KIPO has exclusive jurisdiction on the invalidation trial, an infringement court case may not invalidate the subject patent.

Patent Prosecution Process 

Bifurcation – Separation of Infringement and Validity

Korea has 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 as shown below. Patent infringement and invalidity challenge may occur simultaneously but two proceedings are correlated. Invalidity defense is allowed in limited circumstances under patent Infringement lawsuits. A court may stay the infringement lawsuit proceeding on its discretion due to Invalidity proceeding.

Overview of Basic Structure

Legal System in Korea

There are three tiers of courts in Korea: the District Courts, the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court located in Seoul consists of a Chief Justice and 13 Justices. Korea follows civil law tradition. Accordingly, a decision of the Supreme Court does not have binding authority but since the lower courts follow the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a law, the effect of a Supreme Court decision amounts to a binding force on the lower courts. Neither the jury system nor punitive damage compensation exists in Korea.

The District Courts and its Branch Courts hear the first instance of cases. For example, a patentee must bring a patent infringement lawsuit before a District Court or a Branch Court of a District Court that has jurisdiction over the case. The High Courts are appellate courts. A panel of three judges hears patent infringement cases.

The Patent Court

The Patent Court is the court that specializes in IP, and is located in Daejon which is a city 200 km south of Seoul. The Patent Court is a high court having exclusive jurisdiction over all appeals of the IPT and KIPO. There are 5 panels of 3 judges and 17 technical experts assisting judges of the Patent Court as law clerks. They have different technical expertise, and thus ensure a broad coverage of technology. Further, most of them are former ex-examiners having at least 10 years experience examining patent applications at KIPO.

KIPO and the IPT

The Korean Intellectual Property Office ("KIPO") is located in Daejeon. Within KIPO, the Intellectual Property Tribunal ("IPT"), as Board of Appeal, handles appeals, invalidity proceedings, and proceedings to determine the scope of patent rights. Invalidation Petitions must be brought to the IPT, which has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction for the validity of patents, utility models, industrial designs and trademarks. KIPO has four examination bureaus: Trademarks & Design, Machinery & Metals, Chemistry & Biotechnology and Electric & Electronic.

Bifurcated System

Invalidity must be reviewed by IPT. The district court may not decide invalidity of a patent. Any party interested in the validity of a granted patent may initiate an invalidation proceeding by filing an invalidation petition to the IPT. The invalidation petition may be filed even after the expiration of the subject IP rights. A panel of 3 board examiners reviews the case and may allow oral arguments hearing for both parties.

Need for Korean Patent Application

1. Korea Has an Attractive Market with a Respectable Size.

i. In 2013, Korea has a sizable market, and is currently the 13th largest economy in the world. Moreover, Korea is in the midst of broadening its scope of trades, as well as increasing the size of such trades through Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with the United States, Europe, China, Japan, and more.

ii. Current Status of FTA
Since entering into FTA with the United States in 2012, and with the European Union in 2011, the size of trades between Korea and the US and the EU is continuing to increase. Korea is in the process of entering into FTA with China and Japan as well.

2. Numerous International Companies Are Currently Applying for Patent Protections in Korea. 

i. In 2012, the number of Korean patent applications reached approximately 190,000 – this makes Korea the 5th largest nation in the world, in terms of number of patent applications. Approximately 40,000 applications – 21% of the total 190,000 applications – are submitted by foreign companies, reaffirming Korea’s status as a convenient forum for patent protection.

ii. In addition, 11,000 applications – accounting for approximately 25% of the 40,000 patent applications by foreign companies – were filed by American companies.

3. The Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) Is Highly Trusted Internationally, And Is Appointed To Be The PCT International Searching Authority in Approximately 1/3 Of The U.S. PCT Applications.

   

Year	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
PCT application 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

Source: WIPO, PCT Yearly Review 2012 (May 2012), KIPO

Chief Foreign Enterprises as PCT International Search Requester in KIPO (2012)

• INTEL (semiconductor) 
• MICROSOFT (software) 
• HEWLETT-PACKARD (computer and electronic appliances) 
• BAKER HUGHES (oil well development) 
• Applied Materials (semiconductor production equipment) 
• THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA (medical supplies and chemistry) 
• GOOGLE (internet search) 
• 3M (electronic and information technology) 
• CATERPILLAR (machines of construction) 
• KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE(health and hygiene item)

4. Using KIPO’s Accelerated Patent Examination Track Provides the Shortest Turnaround Time for Patent Issuance in the World.

i. Applications utilizing the accelerated examination track of the KIPO issue in approximately 3 months (approximately 10 months in cases of office actions).

ii. Quickly obtaining patent protections in Korea may have a positive influence in acquiring patent protections overseas for the invention.

iii. Please refer to the link below for specific requirements and protocols for requesting the KIPO accelerated track for examinations.
http://goo.gl/Acw3I7

5. Why Kasan? - Kasan's Patent Application Service

• One Stop Service

        We provide A full-range of legal services in IP related matters.

• Emphasis on Quality

        Almost all works are done by licensed professionals.

• Accumulated Knowhow

        We have represented a variety of clients including Samsung, government organizations, and medium-sized companies. 

• Swift Work Process

        We developed our own IP management system, XPAT, and we are ranked at the top in the agent evaluation of Samsung.