Revision to Intellectual Property Law Scheduled to be Enforced in 2025 (Revised on January 21, 2025, Enforced on July 22, 2025)
Unfair Competition Prevention Act Issues Related to AI Database Crawling 
Patent Examination Accelerated for Biotechnology, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Advanced Robots 
Support for Global Patent Procurement and Improvement of Examination Processing Procedures
LG Electronics, 1st in AI Robot Applications 
C&S News

Revision to Intellectual Property Law Scheduled to be Enforced in 2025 (Revised on January 21, 2025, Enforced on July 22, 2025)

Viena Kim, Patent Attorney

1. Patent Act
1) Major revisions
Damages and infringement crimes can now be applied in cases of exporting patent-infringing products. The upper limit (cap) of the effective patent period for pharmaceuticals has been introduced and the number of extendable patents will be limited. In the case of violations of secrecy orders for inventions necessary for national defense, imprisonment of up to 5 years and a fine of up to 50 million won may be imposed.

2) Specific Revisions
Addition of “Export” to Implementation Type
Export has been added to the implementation type of patented invention. Despite the fact that Korea has a global trade scale as the world’s 8th largest exporter and 10th largest importer as of 2023, imports are included in implementation type under the Patent Act before revision, but exports are not included. For reference, exports were included in the Trademark Act in 1974, and in the Design Protection Act in 2011. The Customs Act and the Act on Investigation of Unfair Trade Practices and Relief of Industrial Damage (‘Unfair Trade Investigation Act’) allow customs to block the export of patent-infringing products or to impose fines, but active protection such as claims for damages or infringement crimes has not been stipulated. This revision allows more active protection of patent holders regarding exports of patented products. The Utility Model Act has also been revised for the same purpose.
- Revised text: Articles 2, 127, and 181

(2) Introduction of limit on patent term extension of pharmaceutical patents and restrictions on number of extendable patents 
The extension of the patent term of pharmaceutical patents is limited to 14 years from the date of pharmaceutical approval, and the number of extendable patents for a single approval is now limited to 1. The patent term extension system is to extend the period of time during which pharmaceutical patents cannot be actually implemented as it takes a relatively long time to receive approval from the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety under certain conditions even after the patent is granted.

Unlike other countries, Korean patent law, before revision, does not have a limit on the patent term extension of pharmaceutical patents, and there has been no limit on the number of patents that can be extended for a single approval. Accordingly, for some pharmaceuticals, the patent term is extended relatively longer than in other major countries, which may delay the launch of generic drugs, such that problems including a reduction in people’s choice of pharmaceuticals and a financial deterioration in health insurance have arisen. By this revision, the patent term extension of pharmaceutical patents can meet the international standards as those of the United States and Europe, and excessive extension of the patent term may be prevented, which may expand people’s choice of medicines and may contribute to financial savings of health insurance.
- Revised text: Articles 89, 90, 91, 93, and 134

(3) Addition of penalty provisions for violation of secrecy orders for inventions necessary for national defense
The Patent Act has been revised such that violations of government orders prohibiting foreign patent applications or keeping patented inventions secret for national defense purposes if necessary (hereinafter referred to as “secrecy orders”) can result in imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million won. The Act before revision did not have separate penalty provisions for violations of secrecy orders, such that sanctions for violations were weak, whereas major countries such as the United States, Japan, and China have criminal punishment provisions for those who violate secrecy orders. Accordingly, in order to secure the effectiveness of secrecy orders, when necessary for national defense, penalty provisions have been newly established, such that they can be applied to those who violate secrecy orders. Also, a dual penalty provision has been added, whereupon corporations and representatives who have a duty of management and supervision can be held responsible in addition to the violators of secrecy orders, subject to a fine of up to 100 million won. The Utility Model Act has also been revised for the same purpose. 
- Revised text: Article 229-3, Article 230

2. Trademark Law
1) Major revisions
The trademark opposition period will be shortened. Punitive damages of up to 5 times are introduced for intentional trademark infringement.

2) Specific Revisions
(1) Trademark opposition period shortened to 30 days
The trademark application examination completion period is now shortened by shortening the opposition period (previous, 2 months → revised, 30 days). The opposition system under the Trademark Law is that anyone can file an opposition within 2 months as of the date of application publication when the Examiner cannot find any reason for rejection of a trademark registration application and issues a decision to publish the application, thereby allowing public examination. Under the system before revision, a 2-month opposition period was allotted after the application publication, but considering that it takes about 13.2 months (as of November 2024) until the first examination begins, there has been a need to shorten the opposition period in order to speedily secure the rights of applicants. In actual cases, only about 1% of all application publications filed oppositions, and thus, it is expected that the total examination processing period will now be shortened significantly through the prompt acquisition of rights for the remaining approximately 99% of application publications. 
- Revised text: Articles 57 and 60

(2) Introducing punitive damages of up to 5 times for intentional trademark infringement
In the case of intentional trademark infringement, the amount of damages acknowledged as “up to 3 times” will be increased to “up to 5 times.” The Design Protection Act has also been revised for the same purpose. This extension of the limit on punitive damages is a measure to prevent malicious trademark and design right infringements and to secure the effectiveness of damage relief. 
It has been pointed out that the reason why intellectual property infringement is not eradicated is because the profits obtained through infringement are greater than paying the fair price for intellectual property. Punitive damages of up to 5 times is the highest level, compared to major countries. Among major countries, Japan does not have a punitive damages system for trademark and design right infringement, while the United States only provides punitive damages of up to 3 times for design right infringement, and does not have a punitive damages system for trademark infringement. China is currently the only country that has been confirmed to allow damages of up to 5 times for trademark and design infringement. 
- Revised text: Article 110

Unfair Competition Prevention Act Issues Related to AI Database Crawling 

Jung-Won LEE, Attorney / Patent Attorney

1. Importance of AI Data Learning and Legal Issues
With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, data collection and utilization for AI learning have become increasingly important. Along with this, “crawling,” in which a program automatically visits websites and collects data, has been widely used.
However, legal issues such as copyright infringement and unfair competition may arise during the data collection and utilization. In particular, if a company collects and utilizes a database built with considerable investment and effort without permission, this may lead to a violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. 

2. Unfair Competition Prevention Act and Unfair Use of Data
The Korean Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the “U.C. Act”) has two important provisions for data protection related to AI learning. 
First, Article 2(1), (Ka) stipulates that “an act of unfairly using data [data as defined in Article 2(1) of the Framework Act on the Promotion of Data Industry and Utilization, which is provided to a specific person or a specific number of people as a business, and which is technical or business information (excluding trade secrets as defined in (2)) accumulated and managed in significant quantities by electronic means]” is an act of unfair competition. This provision went into effect on April 20, 2022. 
Second, Article 2(1), (Pa) stipulates that “an act of infringing upon the economic interests of another person by unauthorizedly using the results, or the like, created through significant investment or effort of another person for one’s own business in a manner of violating fair trade practices or competitive order” is an act of unfair competition. 

3. Major Decision and Legal Standards
The lawsuit between “Yanolja” and “Yogiyo” platforms providing travel and accommodation information is an important reference case. It is noteworthy that the civil court and criminal court made different decisions in the case.
The civil court ruled in favor of Yanolja, acknowledging that the act of copying accommodation information through crawling and using it for business purposes is an act of unfair competition. On the other hand, the criminal court ruled in favor of Yeogiyo, holding that data collection through web crawling did not infringe upon the rights of the database creator, despite the same factual relations.
The Supreme Court ruled that both quantitative and qualitative aspects should be considered when determining whether database copying is an act of unfair competition, and that the investment and effort put into data production should be considered as important criteria.

4. Japan's Law on the Use of AI Data
Japan revised the Copyright Act in 2018 and respond to technological advancements such as AI, Big Data, and IoT. In particular, Article 30(4) stipulates that a work can be used regardless of the method within the scope deemed necessary for “use other than for the purpose of enjoying the ideas or emotions expressed in the work.” However, the Japanese Copyright Act does not recognize exceptions in the cases in which “the interests of the copyright holder are unfairly harmed.” In addition, if the terms of use or license terms of website explicitly prohibit data collection for machine learning and information analysis, acts of violating this agreement may result in legal issues. 

5. AI Data Utilization and Legal Balance Point
The development and innovation of AI technology largely depend on the smooth utilization of data. However, such data utilization should not unfairly infringe on the rights of copyright holders or data producers. The Unfair Competition Prevention Act is an important legal mechanism for finding the balance point therefor.
In the case of Korea and Japan, when collecting and utilizing data for AI learning, it is necessary to check the terms of use or license terms of the website where the data is collected, and to review whether the data being collected is a “result created through significant investment or effort.” In addition, it is necessary to check whether the data collection and utilization do not unfairly harm the interests of copyright holders, and collecting data from companies in a competition relationship should be conducted with caution.
Excessively strong regulations may hinder the development of the domestic AI industry, especially when it is difficult to predict the direction of AI technology development. Therefore, it would be desirable to apply flexible regulations and gradually introduce necessary regulations depending on the direction of future technological development.

Patent Examination Accelerated for Biotechnology, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Advanced Robots 

The Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) announced that the patent examination period for biotechnology, artificial intelligence (AI), and advanced robots significantly shortened from February 19, 2025. As a result, the examination processing period, which previously took an average of 18 months or more after a request for examination, is expected to be shortened to within 2 months at most.
By expanding the prioritized examination to advanced industries such as biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and advanced robots in addition to the semiconductor, display, and secondary battery fields and increasing the number of examiners, it is expected that Korean companies will secure global technological leadership even faster.

Source: Press Release from the KIPO (January 16, 2025)

Support for Global Patent Procurement and Improvement of Examination Processing Procedures

Prioritized examination of domestic applications, which are the basis for international patent applications (PCT), has been promoted. In addition, the processing period for Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) applications is now shortened from the existing 4 months to 3 months. Patent rights could be easily secured when entering overseas markets through cooperation with the US and Japan.
In addition, the period for reexamination, which can be requested instead of an appeal after a patent is rejected, has been extended from the existing 1 month to 6 months, expanding general examination. The examination order of divisional applications will also be in the order of examination requests for the divisional application, the same as in major countries such as the US and Japan.
Through this plan, the Korean Intellectual Property Office expects to shorten the overall examination period to an average of 15.1 months by 2025. In addition, the system in which the Examiner corrects simple errors in the application specification ex officio will be activated, reducing unnecessary administrative procedures and the burden on the applicant.

Source: Press Release from the KIPO (January 16, 2025)

LG Electronics, 1st in AI Robot Applications 

As the convergence of AI technology and robot technology has accelerated, the global AI robot market has been growing explosively. Recently, LG Electronics ranked first in global AI robot patent applications, establishing as a leader in technology and patent strategy.
According to the analysis of the AI technology-based robot applications filed with the patent offices of five major countries, the number of patent applications increased by an average of 58.5% per year over the past 10 years (2012-2021).
LG Electronics has been actively pursuing patent rights domestically and internationally by applying object recognition and voice recognition technologies to cleaning robots, service robots, and logistics robots, and ranked first in the world with 18.8% (1,038 cases) of entire patents.
The patent strategy of LG Electronics and the growth potential of Korean domestic companies demonstrate that Korea can lead the global AI robot market. Through the virtuous cycle of technology development and patent rights, Korean companies are expected to be even more active on the global stage.

Source: Press Release from the KIPO (January 5, 2025)

C&S News

New Patent Attorneys 

C&S Patent and Law Office has recently hired new patent attorneys to further strengthen our business capabilities in the fields of machinery, electronics, and materials. We will continue to do our best to provide professional services by recruiting talented employees.