1. Korean Intellectual Property Office “Disputes over semiconductor layout design rights are also resolved by the Dispute Mediation Committee”

  A partial revision of the law was promulgated, including provisions for the Korean Intellectual Property Office Industrial Property Dispute Mediation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Dispute Mediation Committee) to mediate disputes regarding semiconductor layout design rights. This law takes effect six months after its promulgation. Accordingly, the duties of the Dispute Mediation Committee will be expanded from existing industrial property rights, employee inventions, trade secrets, and unfair competition practices to semiconductor layout design rights. Semiconductor layout design refers to the planar and three-dimensional arrangement of various circuit elements and connecting wires to manufacture semiconductor integrated circuits.

  The Korean Intellectual Property Office plans to appoint up to five additional semiconductor layout design experts as dispute mediators. Currently, the Dispute Mediation Committee is composed of a total of 80 people with technical and legal expertise, including 28 in the patent field, 19 in the trademark and design field, and 27 in the legal field such as trade secrets and unfair competition.

  In 2022, 159 dispute cases were filed with the Dispute Mediation Committee, and cases were processed in an average of 66 days. In cases where both parties responded to mediation, more than half of the cases resulted in mediation (mediation success rate of 53%), establishing itself as a fast and efficient dispute mediation agency.

2. Korean Intellectual Property Office: “If technology is stolen, punitive damages may be up to 5 times the amount.”

  Starting from August of this year, compensation of up to five times the amount of damage will be required in case of infringement of patent rights or trade secrets or theft of ideas.

  Under the current law, even if there is an infringement of patent rights, trade secrets, or the theft of ideas from small and medium-sized businesses, it is not easy to prove, and even if infringement is proven, it is difficult to calculate the amount of damages, so sufficient compensation is not provided. Therefore, a revision of the law was promoted to prevent malicious technology leaks and ensure the effectiveness of damage relief by expanding the limit of punitive damages from 3 to 5 times.

  In lawsuits claiming damages for patent infringement from 2016 to 2020, plaintiffs claimed an average of 628.29 million won, but the median amount quoted is only around 100 million won. This is very small compared to the median amount of damages for patent infringement in the United States, which was 6.57 billion won (1097-2016). As a result, the perception that 'copying technology is profitable' rather than developing technology and owning patents or trade secrets has become widespread, and even if victims win the lawsuit, they often give up the lawsuit because the amount of damages is not sufficient, creating a vicious cycle. The Patent Office's judgment is that this continues.

3. Establishment of regular ‘Technology Police’ at the Korean Intellectual Property Office… Achievements in preventing overseas outflow of semiconductors, etc.

  The Korean Intellectual Property Office announced that the Technology and Design Special Judicial Police Department (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Technology Police’) was organized into a regular organization based on its excellent performance as a result of the evaluation of the new organization of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security.

  The Technology Police, which was newly established to eradicate technology theft and infringement and prevent the outflow of nationally important technologies such as semiconductors and batteries, has been regularized through the revision of the structure of the Korean Intellectual Property Office and its affiliated organizations (Presidential Decree). This regular organization has recently been implemented in response to technology theft and infringement. It was promoted to strengthen the government's technological crime response system and solidify the cooperation system between counterintelligence agencies in terms of national economic and technological security, such as the increasing trend of infringing criminals and the seriousness of overseas technology leaks through industrial espionage.

  The Technology Police, in collaboration with related organizations such as the National Intelligence Service, the Prosecutors' Office, the Police, and the Korea Customs Service, prevented hundreds of billions of won in economic damage by blocking the outflow of national core technologies and cutting-edge technologies. The Technology Police also contributed to the Korean Intellectual Property Office being designated as the 7th counterintelligence agency following the National Intelligence Service, Ministry of Justice, Korea Customs Service, National Police Agency, Coast Guard, and Armed Forces Counterintelligence Command.

4. Supreme Court “Recognizes exclusive trademarks in some cases even if past product names are used”

  The 1st Division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Noh Tae-ak) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the original trial in a trademark registration invalidation lawsuit, stating, "Even if a past product name, such as 'Yangtangguk', the old name for coffee, is used in the trademark, it can be recognized as an exclusive trademark in some cases." The ruling was recently confirmed.

  Mr. Hong registered the trademark in June 2015, saying he would run a cafe under the name 'Yangtangguk'. However, Company A filed a registration invalidation trial for the Yangtang Guk trademark in May 2022. The reason was that it was not appropriate in the public interest to allow Yangtangguk to be used exclusively by specific people as it represents the coffee itself.

  The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board accepted Company A's request and decided to invalidate Mr. Hong's trademark registration. However, Mr. Hong objected and filed a lawsuit and won in both the Patent Court and the Supreme Court.

  The Supreme Court ruled, "Just because a trademark consists of the name of a product that was once used, it is unfair for general consumers to immediately recognize the trademark as indicating the nature of the product as of the date of the registration decision, or to monopolize the trademark to a specific person for public interest reasons." “It is not a matter of determination,” he said, adding, “The party requesting an invalidation trial is responsible for asserting and proving specific facts that fall under the grounds for (registration invalidation) under the Trademark Act.”

  Accordingly, as of June 2015, the date of registration, it was not sufficiently proven that the name 'Yangtangguk' was intuitively accepted by general consumers as an old name for coffee, and the lower court ruled that the registration of the trademark could not be invalidated for this reason. I thought this was reasonable.