All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

South Korea: Continuing your application through the ‘separated application’ system

Sponsored by

hanolip-400px.png
amy-humphries-2m-sdj-agvs-unsplash.jpg

Min Son of Hanol IP & Law looks at the safeguards available as the separated application comes into effect in South Korea during April 2022

On October 19 2021, the Korean Patent Act was amended to allow a ‘separated application’, so as to pursue potentially allowable portions of the pending claims even after an appeal against a final rejection has been rejected (Article 52bis). This separated application system is different from the existing divisional application system, and will be effective from April 20 2022.

Current  procedural  options  are  insufficient

Under Korean patent practice, an application is either allowed or rejected in its entirety (all or nothing), although substantive examination is performed on a claim-by-claim basis. While granted patents are invalidated on a claim-by-claim basis, entire applications, including both potentially allowable claims and rejected claims, have been rejected even when the rejection was directed only to some of the claims (Supreme Court Decision 2001Hu1044).

Meanwhile, under the current law, claim amendments or divisional applications are not possible ‘after’ an appeal against a final rejection has been filed with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB). In this situation, there is no way to protect any potentially allowable claims which are present in the rejected application unless such appeal has a favourable result. Accordingly, as a precautionary measure, applicants have typically used an option to file divisional applications ‘at the same time’ that they appeal to the final rejection.

Further  safeguards  will  be  available

As of April 20 2022, applicants will be able to enjoy a further safeguard since the separated application will be allowed in such situation. This will also be useful when applicants have missed filing of a divisional application. Compared with divisional applications, the separated application can proceed in the manner as illustrated below.

 

343a0e4f8d474b978f31ba73f01e1ea1
Figure 1 - How the 'separated application' will work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time limits for filing

A separated application can only be filed within 30 days of the receipt of an IPTAB decision to reject an appeal against the final rejection; since this deadline can be extended by 30 days, the filing of a separated application is also possible by the extended deadline (Article 52bis(1)).

Requirements for subject matter

A separated application is allowed within the scope of the original disclosure of the parent application. The claims are limited to any one of the following (Article 52bis(1)):

  • A claim which was not rejected in the final rejection subject to appeal;

  • A claim which is drafted by removing from a rejected claim the selective features on which the final rejection was based;

  • A claim of item 1 or 2, which is drafted by narrowing the claim, correcting a clerical error(s), or clarifying an unclear description(s); and

  • A claim of any one of items 1 to 3, which is drafted by deleting subject matter which goes beyond the original disclosure of the parent application.

Requirements for formalities

The separated application (specification and drawings) cannot be filed in English, and the claims must be submitted at the time of filing (Article 52bis(3)). The applicant(s) must be the same as those of the parent application.

Effective filing date

Like a divisional application, a separated application benefits from the same filing date of the parent application, and can also enjoy the priority benefits of the parent application (Article 52bis(2)).

Prosecution/grant

Like a divisional application, a request for examination can be filed within 30 days of the date of filing a separated application (Article 59(3)). It is possible to obtain a patent rapidly since only the allowable portions of the claims are separated from the parent application.

Violating the requirements for subject matter according to Article 52bis(1) will be grounds for rejection, grounds for third-party observation, and grounds for invalidation.

Limitation

A separated application is not allowed to use an option to file a request for re-examination along with an amendment when a notice of allowance or a notice of final rejection is issued (Article 67bis(1)); thus, it has fewer opportunities to file an amendment compared to a divisional application.

Further, separated applications are banned from further continuing the application since they cannot be a basis for filing a next generation of divisional or separated applications, or filing a conversion between patent and utility model applications (Article 52bis(4)).

Significance

With recent legal updates, South Korea has changed to a more flexible system that allows more procedural options to applicants. Accordingly, it is expected that applicants can manage their IP portfolio more strategically by using options at various stages of the prosecution to achieve the best results.

This new separated application system applies to utility model applications as well as patent applications. Separated applications are available for applications where an appeal against a final rejection has been filed with IPTAB on or after April 20 2022.

 

Min Son, PhD

Managing partner, Hanol IP & Law

E: minson@hanollawip.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Federal Circuit okays USPTO director review policies; Red Bull sees off Monster TM appeal; Cisco victorious in Massachusetts court; Vimeo to pay $9m to Italian broadcaster; Mars wins TM suit over cannabis edibles; US gov sides with photographer in Warhol SCOTUS suit; Singers protest Mariah Carey’s ‘Queen of Christmas’ TM filing
In Europe’s patent litigation capital, German firms are in a race for work at the new Unified Patent Court
SMEs can be a joy to work with, but missed deadlines and poor communication can be immensely stressful, attorneys tell Managing IP
The England and Wales High Court ruled that takedown requests can be considered an ‘unjustified threat’, but lawyers say room for manoeuvre remains
Automated letters are giving Canadian TM filers a means to reduce their wait times, but navigating them can be complicated
Lawyers at IBM, Siemens and other firms reveal how they avoid disagreements over what occurred during interviews
This year’s firm rankings cover several practice areas, including copyright, intellectual property transactions, patent litigation, and trademark protection
Sources say the ruling may indicate KIPO’s shifting attitude towards protecting artists’ rights, but appellate bodies are likely to side with agencies
Sources say that the exam format should be revamped to test aptitude rather than rote learning and increase accessibility
The Italian firm that built the UPC case management system plans to launch a full training course in October
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree