1. Amount of damage due to technology extortion of small and medium businesses exceeds 1 trillion won over five years

On July 26, Korea Ministry of SMEs (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) surveyed the status for technology extortion of small and medium businesses. According to the surveyed results, 644 (7.8%) among a total of 8,219 surveyed small and medium businesses over the last five years were subjected to technology extortion. An amount of damage exceeded 1.10 trillion won, and the average amount of damage per case of technology extortion was 1.68 billion won. The Korean government has decided to introduce a 'punitive damage system' for malicious trade secret infringement piracy. According to the system, the infringer should be liable for indemnification of up to three times the occurred damages, and the total amount of fines is even larger, for example, the amount of fines for the trade secret infringement is to be ten times greater than the existing case. The jurisdiction for bringing criminal cases against technology leakage infringement is to be concentrated on the district court in the high court, and an 'intensive psychological system' is to be introduced so as to speed up trials, or the like, such that the trial process will be faster than ever before.

2. Patent 'on-line video interview service between applicant and examiner' is to be implemented

The KIPO will implement in earnest an on-line video interview service on August 8, so that an applicant (agent) who wants to interview an examiner can video communicate with the examiner without having to visit the KIPO in Daejeon. In an attempt to reduce the burden on the applicant due to the recent surge in face-to-face interviews and to strengthen communication, the applicant may conveniently interview an examiner using a video interview system. The number of face-to-face interviews with examiners has continuously increased from 2,257 in 2014 to 2,845 in 2015 and 3,764 last year. In addition to Seoul (the Seoul Office of the KIPO), video interview systems have been set up at eight intellectual property centers outside the Seoul metropolitan area such as Gangwon, Gyeongnam, Gyeongbuk, Gwangju, Ulsan, Incheon, Jeonnam, Busan and the like. An applicant can directly apply for an online video interview with an examiner in the same manner as a face-to-face interview, and can conduct the video interview using a dedicated computer provided at a designated interview site by visiting at the scheduled date and time.

3. Amount of damages due to infringement of trademark rights should be determined based on 'marginal profits'

The patent court ruled that the amount of damages due to infringement of trademark rights should be set based on 'marginal profits.' If the compensation amount of damages is calculated based on marginal profits, it will be more advantageous to holders of trademark rights since the compensation amount will be higher than the case of using 'net profits' or 'standard rates of return.' On June 19, the Patent Court established the criteria for the compensation amount of damages in the decision on a case of the defendant infringed the plaintiff's trademark rights by using a mark similar to the plaintiff's wheelchair trademark. The plaintiff argued that the compensation amount of damages should be set based on the marginal profits obtained from the infringement of the trademark, and the defendant argued for it to be set based on net profits. Marginal profit refers to an amount obtained by deducting variable costs such as raw materials and labor costs spent on the production and sale of infringing goods from the profit obtained through the infringement. Whereas, net profit refers to an amount obtained by further deducting the fixed costs such as depreciation costs and general management expenses from marginal profits. If the compensation amount is determined based on net profits, it is disadvantageous to the holders of trademark rights because the amount is smaller than the case of using marginal profits.

4. U.S. Supreme Court decided that "resale of patent goods cannot be prevented by patent rights"

In the United States, another decision has been made to narrow the protective scope of holders of patent rights. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that distributing products of a buyer cannot be prevented by patent rights even when selling patented goods by applying recent rulings on restrictions and limiting areas. This is a decision to overturn the decision of patent rights can be exercised in consideration of the restrictions in Federal Appeal Court last year. The Supreme Court ruled that if anyone violated a contract prohibiting the resale of products, it could be disputed based on contract law, but it could not be classified as a patent infringement. Recently, Bloomberg and other foreign investors said that the U.S. Supreme Court has judged that 'resale of patent goods that have been already sold cannot be prevented by the patent rights (8-0), and this principle (doctrine of patent exhaustion) will apply equally to products sold overseas (7-1). Lexmark of a U.S. printer maker argued that the case, in which Impression, etc. of a resale company infringed their patent rights due to reprocessing and importing standard and discount toner cartridges sold from Lexmark at home and abroad into the United States, is the patent infringement, but the Supreme Court did not accept the argument.