1. Promising startups "The era of borrowing money with intellectual property rights was held".

An era has come in which money can be borrowed from bank on intellectual property (IP) collateral. KEB Hana Bank, KB Kookmin Bank, NH Nonghyup Bank, Shinhan Bank, Woori Bank have been involved in a series of related products in order to foster start-up (venture start-up). Intellectual property rights are collectively referred to as 'copyright' of Creative-works such as movies and games, and 'industrial property rights' granted to inventions and patent rights. It is funding the start-up that has the technology but does not have the right collateral. When evaluating the 'technical financial performance' of banks, the financial authorities will separately compile intellectual property mortgage loans and reflect them in the management evaluation. In order to ease the burden on banks to recover their loans, a 'recovery support project' will be implemented along with the Patent Office.

2. Patent Tribunal 'cancellation for Non-use of registered trademark' ... 1,444 cases were canceled last year.

According to the Patent Tribunal, the number of trademark cancellation judgments in 2018 increased to 2,523 cases, which is 74% more than 1,499 cases in 2014. The cases of trademark cancellation trials has been increasing, as of 1,499 cases in 2014, 1,903 cases in 2015, 2,122 cases in 2016, 2,124 cases in 2017, and 2,523 cases in 2018. In the same period, 970 cases of cancellation of the non-use of the trademark have been canceled through the trial of the Patent Court in 2014, 1124 cases in 2015, 1207 cases in 2016, 2172 cases in 2017, and 1,144 in 2018, respectively. The reason for cancellation of the registered trademark is that the trademark owner has not used the trademark for 3 years or there is insufficient evidence that the trademark owner has used it for more than three years. The trademark non-use cancellation judgment is a system in which anyone who has not used the trademark in Korea for 3 years can cancel the registered trademark even if the trademark is registered under the Patent Office.

3. The period of examination of patent for innovative new drugs is expected to be shorter than the previous period.

The government is focusing on "future new industry regulatory innovation" in order to preemptively respond to the 4th industrial revolution era. As the aging of population and interest in health increased, the theme of this regulatory innovation was selected as key themes including new drugs and wellness foods, and also included the Internet of Things (IoT) and 3D printing as the basis for the fourth industrial revolution. As a result, the 16 priority examination subjects including the new drug are able to secure the relevant rights early by shortening the period required for the patent registration decision by about 11 months. Normally, the period of time required for patent examination is 16.4 months on average in the past year, and the priority examination is about 5.7 months.

4. The inventive step of this case of 'organ transplants' is not denied. (2016 HU 1840_the Supreme Court Dec. 13, 2018)

In determining the inventive step, it is necessary to determine at least the scope and content of the prior art, the difference between the invention and the prior art to be judged by the inventive step and the person having ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention belongs (hereinafter referred to as "ordinary technician") on the basis of the data in evidence. Next, it should be examined whether an ordinary technician can easily overcome such a difference and easily make it from the prior art, even though the invention of the inventive step is different from the prior art in view of the level of technology at the time of patent application.

In this case, it should not be judged whether or not the ordinary technician can easily invent after the fact that the technique disclosed in the specification of the invention which is the object of the inventive step of judgment is known. (Supreme Court Aug 24, 2007 Decision 2006 HU 138; Supreme Court Nov 25, 2016 Decision 2014 HU 2184)

The preceding inventions do not have the means to solve the problems peculiar to the first invention of the correction in this case which is characterized in that 'The biopsy room with the protrusion on the surface' and 'the mesh part with the both ends tied up with the upper thread and the upper thread penetrating to connect the both ends and pulling the tissue in the plane' are combined.