Statistics of KIPO - IP Applications Trend Over Three Years in Korea
Korea IP Law and Practice on Patent, Design, Trademark, Copyright, Trade Secrets and Unfair Competition
Edit This Menu
12 Months Grace Period in Korea
Article 30 of the Korean Patent Act provides 12 months grace period for disclosed inventions. In inventor or his assignee may obtain a patent through filing an application for the disclosed invention within 12 months from the date of novelty destroying event.
The disclosure of an invention as novelty destroying event might be done by an inventor, his assignee or a 3rd party. If an inventor or his assignee disclosed the invention, they may obtain a patent under the grace period scheme. However, in case the invention was disclosed through patent publications such as A1 publication or B1 publication in any country which was filed by an inventor or his assignee, the grace period may not be applied and thus the applicant finally lost an opportunity to obtain a patent in Korea. Therefore, patent specification publications are critical exceptions to grace period under then Korean patent law.
In other hand, where a 3rd party disclosed the invention without permission of an inventor or his assignee, an inventor or his assignee may file an application for the disclosed invention within 12 months from the date of disclosure. An applicant must prove that the invention was disclosed by a 3rd party against his intention.
An applicant must submit a written document claiming grace period benefit to KIPO when filing a patent application. Further, within 30 days from the filing date, an applicant must submit evidence supporting his claims to the novelty destroying event.
BMS sued Korean pharmaceutical companies alleging patent infringement of entecavir compound patent and low dose formulation patent
Baraclude tablets are a blockbuster drug of BMS that has
been sold for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus infection in Korea.
BMS listed 2 patents in Green List of KFDA that is a local version of the
Orange Book of US FDA. Entecavir compound is the active ingredient of
Baraclude.
Korean generic companies obtained MA for generic
versions to Baraclude and are ready to launch their generic products to the local
market. BMS filed patent infringement lawsuits against Korean pharmaceutical
companies recently.
Before BMS patent infringement lawsuits,
local companies filed invalidity trials to challenge the validity of the
corresponding Korean entecavir compound patent. Also, they filed trials to
confirm the scope of patent right about the corresponding Korean low dose
formulation patent. The invalidity case of the compound patent is pending in
the IPT of KIPO. But the IPT decided that generic products do not infringe the
scope of the low dose formulation patent. In appeal, the Patent Court upheld the
IPT decision that low dose entecavir formulations of 0.5mg or 1.0 mg should be
regarded being obvious over the prior art and that generic drug do not infringe
the subject patent.
Korea has the bifurcated system that allocates
decision power to separate authorities. Patent infringement issue and patent invalidity
issue must be decided by two separate and independent courts. Patent infringement
and invalidity challenge may occur simultaneously but two proceedings are
correlated.
In the patent infringement lawsuits,
defendants Korean companies will raise an affirmative defense about invalidity of
entecavir compound patent. Such invalidity defense is allowed and the court may
stay the infringement lawsuit proceeding on its discretion until the IPT of
KIPO decides validity issue.
On the other hand, defendants are quite
safe from patent infringement liability of low dose formulation patent because
they had prior decisions from the IPT and the Patent Court that their products
are out of the scope of the patent claims in issue.
IPT Decided One of 2 Patents on Herceptin (trastuzumab) Listed in Green List of KFDA as being Invalid
Roche launched Herceptin for the treatment
of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in Korea. And Celltrion, a Korean Pharmaceutical
company, developed a biosimilar Herzuma to Herceptin (trastuzumab) and obtained
marketing approval (MA) for a biosimilar Herzuma (trastuzumab) from KFDA on
January 16, 2014. It has been approved for treatment of early and advanced
(metastatic) HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer as well as advanced
(metastatic) stomach cancer. Roche filed a patent infringement lawsuit against
Celltrion.
Under the bifurcated system about patent
invalidity challenge and patent infringement litigation, an invalidation trial
against one of 2 listed Herceptin patents was filed to the IPT in KIPO rather
than a court. On May 28, 2014, the IPT
decided that Korean Patent No. 1,261,749 on Herceptin is invalid due to
obviousness. Korean Patent No. 1,261,749 with the expiry date of August 25, 2020
is based on PCT/US2000/023391 claiming the priority on US60/151,018
application.
The losing party, patentee, appealed the
IPT decision to the Patent Court.
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.