1. The KIPO plan to carry out a pilot test of the Patent Prosecution Highway system with the German Patent Office for two years starting July 1.

The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is a system whereby a patent application that was granted in one country is more promptly examined in another country compared to other patent applications because the application procedures have been simplified. The KIPO has been operating the PPH system with the Patent Offices of Japan, the U.S.A., Denmark, England, Canada, Russia, and Finland. The countries which have been operating the PPH system with Korea have increased to eight with the addition of Germany.     

The KIPO expects foreign applications filed by domestic companies in Germany, which number fourth after the U.S.A., China and Japan, will be promptly examined by easy and simple procedures. 

2. Korea’s Public Prosecutor (Jun Gyu KIM) announced that on the 14^th day he had met the representatives of small- and medium-sized companies, and that he will create a separate channel connected with the Intellectual Property Protection Center, which is already in operation, to protect the intellectual property rights of small- and medium-sized companies.

At the meeting among the Public Prosecutor and the representatives of small-and medium-sized companies, held at the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business in Yeouido, Mr. KIM, the Public Prosecutor, said that he will form a separate channel which will be operated based on advice obtained from the Intellectual Property Protection Center or each enterprise classified by the type of business because in spite of various damage cases related to intellectual property rights, there are not enough people exclusively responsible for dealing with that work.

According to the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Business, cases of infringement of intellectual property rights are so extensive that the size of the legal market (4.5 trillion won) and the illegal market (4.3 trillion won) for Korean culture contents are similar. Particularly, stealing large companies or small- and medium-sized companies’ patent technologies and business secrets has occurred with frequency, but legal attacks against this or controls by government agencies have not taken place.

3. The USA plans to actively cope with threats of infringement on intellectual property rights

Establishing a new strategy, the Obama Administration of the United States has been working to prohibit piracy of intellectual property rights for internet-based music and movies.

US vice president, John Biden said that he and Justice Minister Eric Holder will push governments harder to shut down foreign internet sites which regularly do illegal things in terms of intellectual property rights. Further, the strategy includes revising a law so that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FAD) has an alarm system regarding forged chemicals and an electrical pursuit system regarding drugs and medical products.

The U.S. National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) required an intensive crackdown on China and singled out China as ground zero for piracy and forgery. Reuters reported that illegal music downloads committed by Baidu, ranked the Chinese No. 1 internet search company, account for 50~75% of all illegal music downloads, citing the latest report of the United States Trade Representative. Victoria Espinel, who is in charge of the enforcement of intellectual property rights of the United States government, desired that “this strategy for protecting intellectual property rights will help export relevant products (made in the USA)”.

4. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a patent can be allowed for a profit model.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on the 28^th day (local time) that a patent can be allowed for a business model. Although the Supreme Court has not specifically defined what types of business models could be patented, opportunities will abound for companies such as software or internet companies who have to use business models to contend for victory.

In the decision of the case “Bilski vs KAPPOS”, the Supreme Court overruled the definition of a single standard presented by the lower court, and ruled that a patent can be allowed for business processes.

In 1997, Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw, who had developed a method of hedging risks in the sale of energy commodities, including the risks associated with bad weather, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington’s decision ruling that a patent cannot be granted for their business processes because they are not related to specific machines or devices. In the judgment, the Court of Appeals said that in order to be registered as a patent, the corresponding processes “must include the conversion of one thing into other thing”. Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the Court had focused on the question whether or not in the information age, software, the latest diagnostic medical technology, data compression, and a digital signal operation are patentable.

5. After a professor establishes a new company, intellectual property rights for inventions made by the professor will be vested in the company.

After a professor or researcher establishes a new small- or medium-sized venture business, intellectual property rights to inventions made by the professor or researcher will revert to the newly established venture business, not a corresponding university or research institute.

The Small and Medium Business Administration (SMBA, Administrator Dong-Sun KIM) announced on July 13^th that a partial revised bill of the Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Venture Business, with this content as the main agenda, will be passed.

Intellectual property rights for technical inventions that employees developed within the business scope of the corporation or government institute that employed them have previously been owned by the corporation or government institute.

In this case, the development is called “an employee invention”. However, intellectual property rights to technologies that university professors or researchers have developed after the establishment of a new separate company are admitted as an exception to employee invention. Accordingly, after professors or researchers establish a new small- or medium–sized venture business, intellectual property rights to their invention will be vested in the newly established company. The Small and Medium Business Administration said that “the establishment of new companies by the collaboration of industry and science will rapidly increase in the future”.