False Patent Marking
Many companies mark their products as patented by the patent number on the product or its packaging. Often they mark their products as patented by the patent application number on the product or its packaging before obtaining granted patent. It is false patent marking. More often many companies continue to mark their products as patented by the patent number on the product or its packaging after the expiry of the patent. That is false patent marking, too.
Patent marking may create consumer goodwill by suggesting that the product is innovative and further deter competitors to enter market with the same product. Even before patent granted, manufacturers may try to achieve similar effect through marking product with a patent application number. On the other hand, continued listing of an expired patent would continue to benefit the manufacturer, too.
In Korea, false patent marking can be charged as a crime. The person or company who did such false patent marking shall be imprisoned not more that 3 years or fined not more than KRW20million (about US$22,000). Several cases law show around US$5,000 fines for false marking.
The Korean Patent Act provides a cause of action against those who falsely claim that their products are patented. A company that falsely marks or advertises a product as patented can be held liable. However, it usually is not a cause of action for civil lawsuit including damage compensation. Without exceptional circumstances, false patent marking is within criminal sanction in Korea. Furthermore, under the Korean patent law, it does not require to falsely mark “for the purpose of deceiving the public” as like in the U.S. The intent or knowledge on false marking is enough.
Basically patent marking is not required by the Korean patent law. Without patent marking, a patentee may obtain a preliminary or permanent injunction against infringers. Unlike the injunction remedy, however, the patentee must prove the intent or negligence of infringers in order to obtain damage compensation from the infringers. Marking is an effective and convenient method to prove it and has been used ordinarily in practice.
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.
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.
Pfizer’s Victory in Lyrica® Patent Infringement Lawsuit in Korea
Based on Pfizer’s Lyrica patent, Korean courts granted preliminary injunctions for patent infringement against two Korean pharmaceutical companies. The local companies launched a generic version of Lyrica last year. The active ingredient of Lyrica is pregabalin that is a known chemical compound and a derivative of GABA (gamma-aminobutyirc acid). Further, the pharmacological effect of pregabalin is known as a depressive neurotransmitter and has been sold as an anti-convulgent drug for a long time. Pfizer discovered a new medicinal use of pregabalin. The subject Korean Patent No. 491282 is directed to a new use of pregabalin for treating pain. It is a second use invention that is one of the main indications of Lyrica.
Korean companies challenged validity of the subject patent on the ground that the new use of pregabalin for treating pain can be anticipated or is obvious over the prior art. They alleged that the pain killing effect might be in the scope of anticipation of an ordinary skilled person because the prior art discloses the compound and its neurotransmitter depressing effect. Also, the blocking of certain neurotransmitter flow may be correlated with anti-pain effect. The IPT of KIPO and the Patent Court, however, maintained the patent by rejecting non-obviousness challenge. The invalidity proceeding has been reviewed by a separate authority rather than a civil court under bifurcation system and is pending before the Supreme Court as a final stage now.
In the meantime, the patentee brought lawsuit for seeking preliminary injunctions against generic companies before the Seoul Central District Court. Recently Pfizer won the cases and was successful in blocking selling generic version of Lyrica in Korea.
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.
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.