특허법인 남앤남

The Name behind your Name since 1952

We, NAM IP Group is here to dream your dream and ready to pave the way for the client's success


Explore NAM IP Group

NAM IP Group has a long history of working experiences with global clients.

2025
With a proud history as Korea's oldest IP law firm, we commit to continue
to provide the best service for your success as we have always done for 70 years.
  • 0
180 +
Professionals
Our professionals are selected based on practice areas
and specific technologies and are trained with the specific
needs of global clients in mind.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Latest Updates

Practice Notes

Revised Patent Term Extension System in Korea: Implications for the Pharmaceutical Industry

Background Unlike patent systems in other countries, under the previous Korean Patent Act, there was no time limit from the marketing approval date for patent term extensions for pharmaceutical patents, and there were no restrictions on the number of patents that could be extended for a single regulatory approval, thereby allowing extensions of multiple patents — such as compound, use, formulation, and dosage regimen patents — based on a single drug approval.  The domestic pharmaceutical industry has expressed concerns that Korea’s patent term extension system has led to prolonged monopolies by foreign drug developers in the Korean pharmaceutical market, which, in turn, delayed the introduction of cheaper generic drugs, and as a result, disproportionately favors those patent holders when compared to systems in other countries, including the United States and Europe. Critics argue that the delayed market entry of Korean local generics limits public access to affordable medications and could strain health insurance finances. Amended Patent Act On December 27, 2024, in response to these concerns, the National Assembly of Korea passed a revision to the Patent Act with the following key provisions: (i) the patent term cannot exceed 14 years from the date of marketing approval, and (ii) only one patent per approval is eligible for extension. The revised Patent Act is expected to be promulgated as early as January 2025 and will come into effect six months after its promulgation, likely in July 2025. This revision will apply to patent term extension applications filed after its effective date. Lawmakers explained that the purpose of the revision was to address the lack of a cap on patent terms and the absence of limits on the number of patents eligible for extension, aiming to prevent delays in the release of generic drugs, and ensure early public access to medications, as well as to align Korea’s system with international standards, particularly those in the United States and Europe. Under the revised Patent Act, there is no change to the provision allowing for a maximum five-year extension, but a new additional cap has been introduced, limiting the total extension to 14 years from the date of approval, in line with US practice. Implications While the full impact of the revised patent term extension system is still uncertain, initial analyses suggest that it may lead to shorter patent terms for original drugs. Only for the purpose of explanation, there may be extreme cases where the impact of the new cap could be significant. For instance, when marketing approval is granted within six years from the international filing date, and the patent term is extended for about three years in Korea, the revised 14-year cap could result in only about four months of extension, despite a prior three-year extension (please refer to the following diagram).  Furthermore, for monopoly drugs where the revenue during the extended patent term exceeds the revenue during the original term, the consequences could be considerable. However, 2023 data on the status of effective patent terms for pharmaceuticals from 1999 to 2021 issued by the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) shows that about 82% of pharmaceutical patents have an effective patent term of under 14 years, suggesting that extensions expire within 14 years from the approval date. As such, the new 14-year cap may have limited impact in many cases.  As a test, we applied the 14-year cap to 15 randomly-selected historic PTE cases handled by our office, and all resulted in extensions within the 14-year limit.  Perhaps the most significant change introduced by the revised Patent Act may be the limitation on the number of patents eligible for extension per product approval. Previously, multiple patents could be extended based on a single drug approval, for example, the above-mentioned data from MFDS also shows that the number of patent registrations exceeds the number of approvals by a factor of 1.7, which indicates that multiple patents may have been registered for a single product. Now, only one patent may be selected for extension. This is likely to have a notable impact on the strategies of original drug companies, as they may now need to focus on extending only one patent (substance patent or a secondary patent) to maximize their patent term. In contrast, generic companies will more easily be able to anticipate when the one extended patent of the original drug expires and this simplification may reduce the complexity of their market entry strategies. Additionally, the revised Patent Act clarifies the starting point for patent term extensions, specifying that the extended period due to delayed registration (Patent Term Adjustment, PTA) will be clearly defined. This ensures greater transparency and consistency in calculating patent term extensions based on regulatory approvals. The revised Patent Act also introduces provisions for rejecting applications for extension that exceed the 14-year cap, as well as allowing for invalidation petitions. If multiple patents are submitted for extension based on a single approval, none will be granted an extension.  Given these changes, patentees should be mindful of these new provisions when filing patent term extension applications after July 2025 in Korea.

2025-01-03
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Upcoming Korean Trademark Act amendments, including shorter period for opposition

On December 27, 2024, the Korean IP Office (KIPO) announced that a bill including several Trademark Act amendments had passed the plenary session of the National Assembly. The amendments will take effect six months after the law's promulgation and are expected to come into effect around July 2025 (precise date not yet known). The amendments include a shorter opposition period and increased punitive damages for willful trademark infringement, as discussed below: SHORTER OPPOSITION PERIOD (2 months → 30 days) Under Korean trademark practice, all applications are substantially examined for both absolute and relative refusal grounds, and once the examiner is convinced that no relevant grounds for refusal exist, the application is published for the purposes of inspection and opposition. Following the publication date, any party can object to the registration of the mark by filing an opposition with KIPO.  The current deadline for filing an opposition is 2 months from the publication date of the application, but this will be shortened to 30 days. (The opposition deadline itself cannot be extended. However, provided a formal notice of opposition is filed by the opposition deadline, the opponent is granted a further 30 days to substantiate the grounds for opposition via submission of a supplemental brief. The submission deadline for the supplemental brief can be extended for up to 60 days for national applications, but not for Madrid applications.) As discussed in an earlier article, this change is in response to the increasing timeframe for trademark applications achieving registration.  By cutting the opposition period approximately in half, non-opposed applications will progress to registration around a month quicker, and as it is reported that only around 1% of all applications are opposed, the vast majority of applications will thus benefit from the amendment. While good news for applicants, this does mean that brand owners will have less time to make a decision on whether or not to oppose a potentially problematic application, and watch service notifications will need to be reviewed and acted on more urgently. INCREASED PUNITIVE DAMAGES (3x → 5x) Provisions for treble damages in trademark and design infringement cases were first introduced in October 2020, following similar earlier provisions for patent and unfair competition cases. With patent and unfair competition laws introducing up to quintuple damage awards in amendments that took effect earlier this year (as reported here), it is now the turn of the Trademark Act to benefit from further strengthened damages provisions. Willful/intentional acts of infringement that take place on or after the effective date of the amendment may be subject to up to 5x punitive damages.  While the availability of treble damage awards was seen as a big step forward in addressing the need for stronger deterrents against infringement in Korea, where historical damage awards were not seen as sufficient to outweigh the profit that could be gained from infringement, the increase to quintuple damages aims to further discourage willful/intentional violations of trademark rights through higher financial consequences, as well as offer better compensation for trademark owners who often struggle to provide concrete evidence of the financial harm caused by infringement, for example in cases involving loss of market reputation or other indirect financial impacts.

2024-12-30
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Supreme Court clarifies the exclusive jurisdiction of the IP High Court in hearing IP-related civil cases (Ruling 2024Da228906 | October 31, 2024)

Introduction Civil cases concerning IP rights including patent rights, utility model rights, design rights, trademark rights, and plant variety protection rights fall under exclusive jurisdiction of specific courts. The first trial is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Seoul Central District Court, Suwon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daegu District Court, Busan District Court, or Gwangju District Court, while the second trial falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the IP High Court. In this regard, the question arises as to what cases are encompassed within “civil cases concerning IP rights”. Supreme Court ruling 2024Da228906 (October 31, 2024) According to the Supreme Court, the reason for stipulating a separate rule on jurisdiction for cases concerning IP rights is that, generally, the hearing and judgment of disputes concerning such rights require specialized knowledge and an understanding of relevant technology; concentrating these cases in specialized courts contributes to the appropriate protection of IP rights. Last year, in ruling 2023Da277260 (December 28, 2023) pertaining to a damages claim, the Supreme Court confirmed that, even when the first trial is judged by a single judge of a district court (including small claims cases), the appeal still falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the IP High Court. This latest Supreme Court ruling we are discussing (2024Da228906 | October 31, 2024) pertains to a case on liquidated damages. Specifically, the plaintiff, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a patent-related dispute and concluded the dispute by withdrawing ongoing invalidation trials or lawsuits. Later, the plaintiff filed a main action seeking payment of liquidated damages, claiming the defendants breached the agreement, while Defendant 1 filed a counterclaim, asserting that the plaintiff breached the agreement and also sought payment of liquidated damages. The first trial decision was rendered by a single judge of the district court, and the second trial decision was rendered by the district court’s panel division. In this regard, the Supreme Court held that the main and counterclaims in this case involve issues requiring an understanding of specialized knowledge or technology related to IP rights. Therefore, these claims fall within the scope of IP cases, and the second trial falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the IP High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court decision and transferred the case to the IP High Court. The Supreme Court particularly ruled as follows on the issue of whether an understanding of specialized knowledge or technology related to IP rights is necessary: Regarding the main action, it is necessary to examine and judge whether specific acts of the defendants fall under prohibited acts specified in the settlement agreement. This requires a comprehensive review of the details and outcomes of the patent-related invalidation trial, trial decision cancellation lawsuit, and scope confirmation trial,     as well as the identity between the technology for which the plaintiff applied and the plaintiff’s patented invention technology. Regarding the counterclaim, it is necessary to examine and judge whether specific acts of the plaintiff fall under prohibited acts specified in the settlement agreement. This requires a comprehensive review of the details of the defendants’ patented invention technology and whether the plaintiff included false information regarding the defendants’ patented invention in an application for designation as a new construction technology.   Comment This Supreme Court ruling is significant in clarifying that if the substantive nature of a dispute requires an understanding of specialized knowledge or technology related to IP rights, such cases are regarded as “civil cases concerning IP rights” and thus fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the IP High Court.

2024-12-06
READ MORE
Practice Notes

What Happens to Patent Licensing Agreements and Patent Non-Implementation Agreements When a Patent is Invalidated?

When a patent is invalidated after a Patent Non-Implementation Agreement is executed, what becomes of the legal relationship surrounding the agreement? Under the Korean Patent Act, if a patent is invalidated, it is considered to have never existed from the outset. Does this mean that if the other party used the patented invention, it is no longer considered a breach of contract? Additionally, if the other party proves that the invention they used falls under the category of free-to-use technology, would this eliminate their liability under the agreement? This article will first review relevant Supreme Court decisions regarding Patent Licensing Agreements and the invalidation of the related patent and then introduce the latest Supreme Court ruling delivered on November 20, 2024, which addresses these issues.    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Patent Licensing Agreements and the Invalidation of the Related Patent (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da42666, 42673 | November 13, 2014)    1.    Does a Patent Licensing Agreement Become Void If the Underlying Patent is Invalidated?    When a patent is invalidated after the execution of a licensing agreement, the patent is deemed to have never existed, except in specific circumstances. However, unless the patented invention that is the subject of the contract was impossible to implement, the Patent Licensing Agreement cannot be deemed to have been in a state of initial impossibility at the time of its execution. It is only upon the invalidation of the patent that the agreement is considered to enter a state of non-performance.    2.    Is the Patentee Obligated to Refund Royalties for the Period the Agreement Was Valid?    Even if the patent is invalidated, the patentee is not required to refund royalties received for the period when the licensing agreement was valid, unless the agreement was initially void or there were separate grounds for invalidity of the agreement.     A subsequent Supreme Court ruling (2018Da287362, April 25, 2019) reinforced this view, stating that patentees can claim royalties for the valid period of the agreement.    3.    Can a Licensing Agreement Be Voided Due to a Mistake About Patent Validity?    Given the inherent possibility of a patent being invalidated after registration, a licensing agreement cannot be voided for mistake unless the validity of the patent was explicitly agreed upon as a fundamental term of the contract. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Patent Non-Implementation Agreements and the Invalidation of the Related Patent (Supreme Court Decision 2024Da270105 | November 20, 2024)    1.    Does a Non-Implementation Agreement Lose Effect Upon Patent Invalidation?    Even if a patent is invalidated after the execution of a Non-Implementation Agreement, the agreement is not void from the outset. Instead, it becomes unenforceable only after the patent’s invalidation. Thus, unless there are separate grounds for invalidity of the agreement, the patentee can claim damages for breach of the agreement during the valid period    2.    Can the Defendant Argue Freedom-to-Use Technology as a Defense Against Breach    The fact that the defendant’s use of the invention constitutes freedom-to-use technology (i.e., technology that can be easily derived from public knowledge) does not exempt them from the obligations under the Non-Implementation Agreement, which remains binding as per the parties’ mutual understanding. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Conclusion The Supreme Court has clarified that neither licensing agreements nor non-implementation agreements are automatically void when the associated patent is invalidated. In licensing agreements, patentees can claim royalties for the period before invalidation, and refunds are not owed for royalties already received during that time. In non-implementation agreements, patentees can claim damages for breach of contract during the period before the patent’s invalidation, and defendants cannot evade liability by arguing freedom-to-use technology.

2024-12-05
READ MORE

Send us a message

We usually respond within a few hours

If you agree to use personal information, please check the box.