[Patent Infringement Litigation in Korea - 5] Injunction

Permanent Injunction

An IP right owner will seek to enjoin an infringer at the beginning of a lawsuit through preliminary 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.

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.

 

[Patent Infringement Litigation in Korea - 4] Patent Infringement Litigation Procedures

 1. Complaint and Answer

A patentee may initiate a lawsuit by filing a complaint that includes the parties’ information, prayer of remedy and grounds why the defendant is liable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff may seek a court granting an order of barring the opposing party’s infringing manufacturing, marketing and selling activities; the seizure or destruction of all finished or half-finished infringing products in the opposing party’s possession and compensation for damages.

 

The defendant may submit a written answer to deny or accept the complaint within 30 days of being served the complaint. Furthermore, the defendant may file a counterclaim. But, due to bifurcated system about independent invalidity action, the defendant may not file a counterclaim to invalidate the subject patent.

 

2. No Discovery like the US type is available.

 

3. Briefs and Evidence as Exhibits

 

After the court has served the answer to the plaintiff, the parties are required to exchange briefs and exhibits. Each party may object to those exhibits that are irrelevant or inappropriate. The plaintiff ordinarily files his briefs at first, and then the defendant files his briefs in turn. A court may allow the parties having another opportunity to exchange briefs before a preparatory oral hearing which is a kind of scheduling meeting. The court usually permits a 3~4 weeks period for each brief filing. The court usually rules on the admissibility of the objected exhibits in the oral hearing.

 

4. Oral Hearing

 

In the first oral hearing, the court will allow parties submitting their arguments and evidence and then will arrange the disputed facts and issues between parties. Through briefs, parties will provide the court with the nature of the controversy, evidence, legal contentions that the parties believe support their positions. The court will decide what issues are presented by both parties and how the case will proceed. It is likely for parties to have two or more oral hearings in patent infringement case.

 

5. Evidence

 

Korea does not have discovery procedures and jury trials. All lawsuits are tried by judges. Because judges are skilled in the rules of evidence, judges are usually lenient in allowing evidence to be introduced.

 

A. Document Request

 

Each party can request the court to order the other party to submit relevant documents in issues. The party having the document must submit the document to the court. The court can enforce this order by monetary sanctions and evidentiary sanctions. Evidentiary sanctions include not allowing responding party’s submission of the evidence for his benefits, and more importantly may regard the requesting party’s assertion as true. The document request is not applicable to attorney client privilege documents, attorney work products and confidential information.

 

B. Protective Order

 

In case a party insists the document is private, trade secret, or others, the court may order the party to submit the document and then examine without the other party’s participation. Hence it is not permitted for a respondent to refuse document submission for trade secret reasons. Only the party may seek court’s protective order on his information.

 

C. Expert Opinion

 

The parties can retain experts to testify on their behalf. The party applying for expert opinion should submit expert candidates and manner of expert opinion, and further should pre-pay the cost. If the party applying for expert opinion wins the case, the prevailing party will recover the cost from the losing party. Patent cases need prudent expert opinions that usually need considerable time and cost.

 

D. Court Inspection

 

Court inspection is adopted for judges to examine and analyze actual objects using the five senses of judges. The court inspection can be the most powerful means for proof if judges recognize the nature and contents of the subject evidence adequately. For example, judges may compare patent’s product with infringer’s product through watching experimentations or seeing or touching by themselves. Though ordinarily it is not easy for judges to comprehend the technical peculiarity through court inspection, the court often allows parties court inspection.

 

E. Special Hearing for Technical Issues (Markman Hearing)

 

A court usually set an oral hearing for examining technical features. Both parties may present technical issues including background technology, claimed inventions, elements of the invention and comparison of elements between the patented invention and the accused product or process. Parties are permitted to use drawings, documents, power point presentations, models, real products, demonstrations, and others. It is one of the most important proceedings for parties to be able to have an influence on judge’s decision.

 

F. Witness Examination

 

The party who calls a witness will conduct the first examination of the witness. The direct examination shall be done by using open-ended questions. For instance, any leading questions, which allow only for a “yes” or “no” answer, are not allowed. The opposing attorney has a chance to cross examine the witness and he is allowed to use leading questions: cross examination. But the cross examination shall be limited to the subject matter raised during the direct examination. When the opposing attorney has finished his cross examination, the attorney who did direct examination has an opportunity to conduct redirect examination. The attorney again cannot use leading questions.

 

Parties may submit an affidavit as documentary evidence for direct examination of a witness. In the oral hearing, only crucial points of the affidavit are examined and other details can be omitted in that direct examination. Accordingly, sufficient time is allotted for cross-examination. When a witness is hostile and is not under the influence of the requesting party, the party may file a motion that the witness must be summoned and when the motion is accepted the party must submit main contents for direct examination in advance.

[Patent Infringement Litigation in Korea - 3] 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.

[Patent Infringement Litigation in Korea - 2] Claim Interpretation under Korean Patent Law

1. 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.

2. 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.

 3. 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.

 

[Patent Infringement Litigation in Korea - 1] Cease and Desist Letter – Warning Letter

When a patentee finds his patent right being infringed by a third party, he may send an alleged infringer a cease and desist letter. It is to warn the infringer of legal responsibilities and demand the cessation of infringement activities. Furthermore, the accused infringer, at least from the day of receiving the warning letter, will not be able to deny his intent or negligence in the infringement activities.

 

This warning letter plays an important role in proving the claim of damage compensation as well as the criminal liability for infringement. For criminal action, it is required to prove the intent of an infringer regarding infringing acts of a patent without doubt. In particularly, infringer’s intent in the infringement shall not be presumed even if a patent marking is present on the patented product. With a warning letter, it is easy and convenient to prove the infringer’s intent beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, a patentee has often sent warning letters to infringers to point out the ownership of the patent and their infringing activities.