특허법인 남아이피그룹

Ip Materials

Practice Notes

Practice Notes

Amendments to Korean Design Law: Strengthened Protection for Genuine Rights Holders & Tighter Controls on Partial Examination Filings

Effective 28 November 2025, amendments to the Design Protection Act came into force in Korea. These changes aim to curb the misuse of the partial examination system and provide stronger remedies for genuine design owners. ▒  BACKGROUND: “Partial Examination” System Korea operates two examination tracks for design filings: “full examination” and “partial examination”. Full examination is comparable to standard examination in other jurisdictions and includes full examination of both novelty and conflicts with senior applications/registrations. For designs subject to full examination, examiners review a wide range of substantive requirements, but examination takes around seven months on average (based on 2024 data). On the other hand, partial examination offers greatly expedited registration for industries with rapid design cycles, e.g., apparel, fashion accessories, stationery, textiles, packaging, and similar goods. Specifically, designs falling under Locarno classes 01, 02, 03, 05, 09, 11 and 19 are subject to partial examination. Under this system, novelty and conflicts with senior design rights are not examined in detail and only certain basic requirements such as application formalities, industrial applicability and limited novelty requirements (the application could not be an easily created combination of widely known shapes, patterns or colors) were reviewed. Due to the simpler process, official fees are lower and registration can be achieved within weeks.  Another feature unique to partial examination designs is the existence of an opposition period following publication (laying open) of the design in the Design Gazette. Due to the limited novelty search carried out during examination, this provides an opportunity for any other parties to oppose the registration. The opposition period is three months from the date of publication.  The motivation for offering partial examination is to allow businesses that operate on extremely short design cycles to secure design rights before trends change or copied versions appear in the market.  However, the system has been vulnerable to abuse, with cases of applicants registering already-published designs, re-registering expired or cancelled designs, and using such illegitimate registrations as the basis for sending infringement notices, demanding takedowns, or pressuring legitimate competitors. As examiners lacked statutory authority to reject partial-examination filings even when novelty defects were apparent, improper registrations routinely slipped through.  The amendments directly address these systemic vulnerabilities. ▒  WHAT IS CHANGING? 1. Stronger Examination for Partial-Examination Designs Examiners may now reject partial-examination applications where a clear lack of novelty or conflict with a senior application/registration is detected. This is expected to dramatically reduce “bad-faith” or opportunistic registrations, offer better protection for genuine creators whose designs are already public, and also contribute to a more predictable and trustworthy design-right landscape for fast-cycle industries. 2. Extended Opposition Period if Genuine Rights Owner Receives Infringement Notice The standard opposition window remains three months from publication. However, in practice, businesses may only discover an illegitimate registration after receiving a cease-and-desist letter or a marketplace takedown request. The amendment provides that if a party receives an infringement notice, they may file an opposition within three months of receiving the notice, provided no more than one year has passed since the publication date of the design.  This should allow genuine rights holders to challenge improper registrations without being penalized for missing the initial publication window, and allow for faster removal of rights used for unfair enforcement or e-commerce disruption. 3. New Design Ownership Transfer Claim This newly adopted mechanism mirrors the patent ownership transfer system introduced in 2017. Before the amendment, if another party registered your design, unless they were willing to assign the rights voluntarily, it was necessary to invalidate the registration and re-file the application. This has obvious negative implications such as loss of priority date, lack of enforceability, as well as time and financial constraints. Following the amendment, the rightful rights owner may now petition the court for a direct transfer of the registered design right to themselves, without needing to file a new application. This maintains the original registration date and affords the rightful owner an immediately enforceable right as soon as the transfer judgment is issued. Additional provisions include protection for good-faith non-rightful owners via statutory non-exclusive licenses, issuance of a new registration certificate to the rightful owner, and restrictions on invalidation challenges against the transferred right from the illegitimate registrant. ▒  FINAL COMMENTS With partial examination filings representing around 40% of all Korean design filings in 2024, closing loopholes in the system should be highly impactful across multiple industries. Further, the new design ownership transfer claim allows genuine creators to reclaim misappropriated registrations without invalidation or re-filing, preserving the original filing date and ensuring uninterrupted, fully enforceable rights. These amendments represent a meaningful improvement of Korea’s design-rights system and contribute to a more balanced and reliable environment for design protection and enforcement.

2025-12-01
READ MORE
Practice Notes

KIPO Extends Office Action Response Period and Opens Deferred Examination to Divisional Applications

Effective July 11, 2025, the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) introduced two notable procedural changes to patent and utility model practice: an extended response period for office actions and expanded eligibility for deferred examination and decision deferral. These updates are aimed at easing administrative burdens and giving applicants greater control over managing examination timelines. ▒  Extended Response Period: From Two to Four Months The default response period for office actions has been increased from two months to four months. Previously, applicants had to rely on monthly extension requests to match the initial response windows available in other jurisdictions:  ● United States and Japan: 3 months  ● Europe and China: 4 months With this change, Korea’s default response period now better aligns with international practice. The extension system remains unchanged: as before, applicants may request up to four additional months in one-month increments, allowing for a total response period of up to eight months. Applicants seeking quicker progress can still file early responses along with a request to shorten the designated response period—an option that may be useful in enforcement or parallel filing scenarios. ▒  Deferred Examination and Decision Deferral Now Available for Divisional Applications KIPO’s deferred examination system allows applicants to postpone substantive examination for strategic or commercial reasons. Under this system:  ● Examination may be delayed for up to two years after the request for examination is filed.  ● Examination must begin within five years of the application’s filing date.  ● The request to defer examination must be submitted within nine months of the request for examination. Separately, applicants may also request decision deferral, which allows KIPO to withhold the final decision on patentability for up to 12 months from the application’s filing date, provided the request is made within six months of filing. Importantly, examination—including office action issuance—can still proceed during the deferral period. Until now, divisional applications were excluded from both deferred examination and decision deferral. The July 2025 amendment removes that restriction, allowing divisional applications to benefit from both mechanisms on the same terms as original applications. These changes—particularly the expansion of deferred examination—will benefit applicants managing families of related applications, especially in industries with long development timelines, such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and advanced communications, where examination timing is often coordinated with commercialization or regulatory schedules.

2025-07-15
READ MORE
Practice Notes

Toward “K-Discovery”? Discovery Reform under South Korea’s New Administration and Its Implications for Patent Litigation

Discovery reform in South Korea has attracted growing attention in recent years—especially in the context of patent and trade secret disputes, where plaintiffs often struggle to access internal evidence critical to proving their claims. The absence of a general discovery framework is widely seen as a gap in Korea’s IP enforcement regime. During his campaign, the country’s newly elected president pledged to introduce a “Korean-style discovery system” as part of his judicial reform agenda. Now, with the new administration in place and relevant bills already on the table, the groundwork appears set for change that could reshape the contours of litigation in Korea. ▒  Background South Korea does not maintain a general pretrial discovery system akin to that of the United States. Whereas U.S. litigation features broad, adversarial, and largely party-driven discovery procedures, Korean civil litigation is tightly court-controlled, with limited mechanisms for evidence collection. These differences in procedural approach have meaningful implications for IP enforcement. In patent litigation, for instance, plaintiffs—despite bearing the burden of proving both infringement and damages—have few procedural tools to compel disclosure of internal materials such as technical schematics or manufacturing data. As a result, evidentiary asymmetries between plaintiffs and defendants are common, particularly in method-claim or trade-secret disputes where critical evidence is solely in the hands of the alleged infringer. Certain provisions in the Korean Patent Act are designed to alleviate the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs. Notably, a 2019 amendment introduced a new article requiring defendants to disclose relevant records when infringement is plausibly alleged, or risk having the allegations deemed established. However, as with similar provisions, courts retain wide discretion and remain cautious in exercising it, limiting the practical impact of these measures. ▒  Growing Institutional and Political Momentum Against this backdrop, calls for a more structured and proactive discovery system have continued to gain momentum, supported by years of institutional engagement by the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), the judiciary, and the legislature. A comprehensive 2023 report by the National Assembly Research Service (NARS), for instance, emphasized the need for discovery reform—while also cautioning that any Korean-style system must remain under judicial control and align with Korea’s civil law tradition. This issue was picked up in the recent presidential campaign. President Lee Jae Myung identified discovery as a key tool to combat technology theft and strengthen IP enforcement, pledging to introduce reforms aimed at addressing evidentiary asymmetries by enabling parties to effectively compel disclosure of relevant materials. This commitment was mentioned in his “Top 10 Key Policy Pledges” submitted to the National Election Commission, under the broader objective of restoring procedural fairness and advancing judicial reform. In this context, two significant discovery-related bills have already been introduced by the ruling Democratic Party—one in August 2024 and one in April 2025. Both propose amendments to the Civil Procedure Act and are currently pending before the National Assembly. ▒  Key Features of the Proposed K-Discovery System Based on the pending bills, the president’s campaign platform, and the prevailing discussions, the emerging contours of a Korean-style discovery system are likely to include:    ●   Strengthened court-ordered document production: Expanded authority for courts to compel production of relevant materials, with enforceable              sanctions for unjustified non-compliance.    ●   Court-appointed expert inspections: Authority for courts to designate neutral experts to conduct on-site investigations, particularly where                      documentary evidence is impractical.    ●   Pre-trial witness examinations: Procedures for early-stage witness testimony and evidence preservation to clarify key facts ahead of trial.    ●   Protective orders and confidentiality safeguards: Authority for courts to conduct closed hearings or limit access to sensitive materials in cases                involving trade secrets, balancing disclosure needs with confidentiality. Given the legislative alignment and lack of political opposition on this issue, these reforms appear poised to move forward. ▒  Implications for Patent Enforcement If enacted, these reforms could materially improve plaintiffs’ access to key evidence, significantly altering the patent litigation landscape. They would enable:    ●   Access to internal sales and production data critical for calculating damages.    ●   Inspection of manufacturing facilities or servers to confirm infringement.    ●   Pre-trial witness examination to clarify issues of control, knowledge, or willfulness.    ●   Greater leverage in settlement negotiations, backed by enforceable procedural rights. Taken together with recent substantive developments—such as the introduction of enhanced punitive damages for willful patent infringement (up to five times actual damages)—a more effective discovery regime would represent a significant procedural advance and enhance Korea’s standing as a forum for patent disputes.

2025-06-24
READ MORE

Send us a message

We usually respond within a few hours

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