South Korea: How to take advantage of the grace period in Korea

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

South Korea: How to take advantage of the grace period in Korea

Sponsored by

hanolip-400px.png
anne-nygard-3it2r0sghay-unsplash.jpg

When inventions/designs are disclosed to the public by one of the inventors/designers or applicants, a one year grace period is available in Korea for patent, utility model, and design applications.

Grace period is not based on the effective filing date

The duration of such grace period is one year before the Korean filing date (for patent applications filed before March 15 2012, governed by the old law, six months before the Korean filing date), not the effective filing date. To enjoy the grace period, therefore, either (i) a direct Korean application or (ii) an international application (followed by later national phase entry into Korea) must be filed within one year of the prior disclosure date, regardless of whether the application claims foreign priority. That is, the grace period is not extended further, even for cases claiming priority to a foreign application. If a foreign application is filed within the grace period and a direct Korean application or international application claiming priority to the foreign application is filed after the grace period, the Korean application cannot benefit from the grace period, and thus the prior disclosure would serve as prior art.

In what circumstances does the grace period apply?

Conditions for the grace period should be contemplated when an invention/design is disclosed before filing an application. Disclosures such as a public use, a presentation at an academic conference, or a printed publication are eligible for the grace period. However, inventions/designs which have been disclosed via a laid-open publication or a registration publication in or outside Korea before filing are not eligible for the grace period in Korea.

sk

Regarding the disclosure of the invention, the Supreme Court ruled that "an invention publicly known or worked" means an invention disclosed under the condition that any person who does not have confidentiality obligations can readily grasp the content of the invention, regardless of whether the person actually recognises the invention (see, e.g. Supreme Court decision 2011Hu4011 decided on April 26 2012). This ruling is based on the reasoning that a person having ordinary skill in the art may be able to disassemble and analyse a product covered by the invention to understand the invention.

For an invention directed to a chemical substance or medicine, the Patent Court recently held that even if a product was publicly sold before the filing date, if a person skilled in the art was unable to determine its compositional ratio or components by using an analysis method available before the filing date, without undue effort, it cannot be considered that any person could have recognised the invention embodied in the product (Patent Court Decision 2016Heo7954 rendered on January 11 2018, which was upheld by the Supreme Court). In view of the above decision, in circumstances where the patentable feature of a composition invention distinguishable from prior art lies in a specific compositional ratio or a unique combination of components, and a product covering the composition invention was publicly sold before filing, it is advisable to file a patent application in Korea even if the one year grace period has already passed.

Submission of written statement and evidentiary document is required

The benefit of the grace period is not automatically granted in Korea. The applicant is required to indicate his/her intention to take advantage of the grace period in writing, with the submission of an evidentiary document showing (i) the disclosure date; (ii) the disclosing party; (iii) the type of disclosure; and (iv) the content of the disclosure.

In the case of patents and utility models, for applications filed before July 29 2015, a written statement of intention to take advantage of the grace period should be submitted at the time of filing, while an evidentiary document should be filed within 30 days of the filing date. However, the time period in which the grace period can be applied has been extended for applications filed on or after July 29 2015, as follows:

a. Submission of an amendment is possible

i. at any time prior to the issuance of a first office action (a Notice of Preliminary Rejection or a Notice of Allowance),

ii. within the time period for responding to a preliminary rejection, or

iii. when filing a request for re-examination, or

b. within three months of receipt of a Notice of Allowance, but before registration.

It should be kept in mind that the grace period cannot be acknowledged after registration of patents or utility models. If a written intention or an evidentiary document is not submitted within the above period, a third party may use the prior disclosure as a basis to deny the novelty of the claimed invention through a request for cancellation or an invalidation trial after the registration.

In the case of designs, however, the grace period can be claimed even after registration. A design applicant can claim the grace period and submit an evidentiary document at the following times:

a. at the time of filing a Korean application (an evidentiary document can be separately submitted within 30 days of the filing date);

b. until KIPO issues a Notice of Final Rejection or a Notice of Allowance (an evidentiary document can be separately submitted within 30 days of the date of claiming the grace period if a Notice of Final Rejection or a Notice of Allowance has not yet been issued);

c. at the time of submitting a response to an opposition filed by a third party; or

d. at the time of submitting a response to an invalidation trial lodged by a third party.

Remarks

When the grace period is properly claimed, an earlier disclosure made by one of the inventors/designers or applicants would not serve as prior art against the application at issue. However, if a third party discloses the invention/design before the filing date, such intervening disclosure serves as prior art. Thus, once a public disclosure is made, it is desirable to file an application as soon as possible.

(Comparison of Korean practice with US practice regarding grace period)

Min Son

Partner, Hanol IP & Law

E: minson@hanollawip.com

HANOL Intellectual Property & Law

6th Floor, Daemyung Tower, 135, Beobwon-ro, Songpa-gu

Seoul, 05836

Republic of Korea

Tel: +82 2 942 1100 

Fax: +82 2 942 2600

hanol@hanollawip.com

www.hanollawip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Vaping dispute, in which Stobbs and Brandsmiths are the representatives, tested how the UK's Human Rights Act can apply to injunctions restraining unjustified threats
An AI platform being sold for £40m, and lateral hires involving law firms Womble Bond Dickinson and Cadwell Thomas were among the top talking points
With the London Annual Meeting behind us, we look back at some of the lessons learned this week and ahead to what 2027 will bring
In-house counsel aren’t impressed with law firms’ international networks, but practitioners say they are crucial for business
Publication of the UPC’s annual report and adoption of the procedural rules of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre were also among major developments
With the INTA Annual Meeting drawing to a close, we asked attendees for their top tips on how to close business after a meeting
Senior UK judges discussing the impact of AI on the judiciary, and the role of in-house IP lawyers during corporate transactions and carve-outs were among the top talking points
Tarun Khurana, founding partner of Khurana & Khurana, discusses juggling tasks, why every hour has a value, and the importance of ‘trusting the process’
Annual Meeting hears that IP firms are targeting hires with technical literacy in a fragmented landscape, and that those that build an online presence will distinguish themselves from the digital chaos
How law firms can secure themselves in a technology-driven IP landscape and how IP teams can develop future leadership were among the top talking points
Gift this article