Korean patent practice
What differs from the EPC?

A claim set and prosecution strategy developed before the European Patent Office can be an excellent reference for a Korean case. They should not, however, be assumed to work in Korea without further analysis. The Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP) applies Korean statutes, examination guidelines and procedures. Even where the invention and prior art are the same, the filing language, available amendments and points of emphasis may differ.

1. The Korean-language text is substantive, not merely formal

For Korean prosecution, the Korean specification and claims are not simply administrative attachments. They must convey the technical meaning of the invention and define the claimed scope clearly enough to support later examination and amendment. Literal translation alone is rarely the best measure of accuracy. Terminology and sentence structure should be reviewed against the original disclosure so that a Korean examiner can read the technical relationships without losing the support contained in the source application.

2. We do not simply copy an EPC response

The EPO Guidelines for Examination and the Korean Patent Examination Guidelines are grounded in different legal systems and office practices. An argument or amendment that worked in Europe should therefore be reassessed against the Korean office action, the cited-document combination and the examiner’s stated concern. The objective is not only to overcome a rejection, but also to preserve the scope that matters to the applicant’s business.

3. Procedure and timing should be designed together

Korean practice offers procedural choices at several stages, including the request for examination, submission of arguments and amendments, re-examination after a final rejection, and appeal. The right path depends on the amendment room that remains, the status of related family cases, product timing and enforcement plans. Applicants familiar with the EPO’s centralised grant and opposition framework should consider the purpose and timing of each Korean step separately.

4. Korean counsel should be a co-strategist, not a forwarding address

An applicant without an address or place of business in Korea is generally required to conduct Korean patent proceedings through a patent administrator in Korea. The local representative’s role should extend well beyond forwarding documents. Direct discussion between foreign counsel and the responsible Korean patent attorney helps align the original drafting intent, available amendment positions and commercial priorities—reducing avoidable exchanges and unnecessary loss of claim scope.

5. What helps Korean counsel advise efficiently

At the outset, it is useful to share the source application, the current claims across the patent family, material EPO office actions and responses, the applicant’s preferred fallback positions, and the products or commercial activities the claims are intended to protect. Identifying fixed deadlines and jurisdictions in which related cases remain pending also helps the Korean strategy stay consistent with the wider family.

This article provides general practical information and is not legal advice for any specific matter. Deadlines and response strategy should be determined after reviewing the facts of the application and the law in force at the relevant time.