The Supreme Court has set important precedents on business method patents in Korea by hearing two cases.
Supreme Court Case no 2007 Hu 494 (Mini-room case) is related to "a method for managing a mini-room for use in internet community". The corresponding application describes a method for enabling a member to possess his private space in the form of his actual personal room in online community services and to freely decorate the private space by purchasing furniture in cyberspace. However, the validity of the invention claimed in the application was denied during examination and by the Korean Intellectual Property Tribunal (KIPT) and the Korean Patent Court (KPC). Finally, the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled: "Both the amended Claim 3 and the original Claim 1 fall within the scope of a business method invention. However, neither includes contents regarding a specific means using a combination of software and hardware, nor do the foregoing claims clearly describe how an operation or a process of information of each step are embodied based on purposes of use. Accordingly, the claimed invention as a whole could not be considered to be an 'industrially applicable invention' under Article 29, Paragraph 1 of the old Korean Patent Act."
Supreme Court Case no 2007 Hu 265 (the virtual item case) is related to "a method for a user to purchase virtual items for everyday living in a network and thereby, providing life planning consulting." The validity of the invention claimed in the corresponding application was also denied during examination, by the KIPT and the KPC. The applicant again appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled: "In order for an invention to be a business method invention, information processing by software should be concretely embodied by using hardware in a computer. The invention of the original Claim 1 falls within the scope of a business method invention, and the essential parts are the configurations of the fourth and fifth steps. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art could not conceive how the information processing by software is embodied by using hardware only by the claims or other descriptions in the Detailed Description and drawings. Accordingly, the invention of the original Claim 1 could not be considered to be an 'industrially applicable invention' under Article 29, Paragraph 1 of the old Korean Patent Act."
 |
|
 |
| Chad (Chang Hoon) Lee and Sungjin Chun |
Ella Cheong Spruson & Ferguson (Singapore) Pte Ltd
5th Floor, Myeonglim Bldg
51-8 Nonhyeon-Dong, Gangnam-Gu
Seoul, 135-814
Korea
Tel: +82 2 511 4210
Fax: +82 2 511 4610
ip@muhann.com
www.muhann.com