Korean Supreme Court clarifies ‘new substance’ interpretation for patent term extensions

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Korean Supreme Court clarifies ‘new substance’ interpretation for patent term extensions

Sponsored by

hanolip-400px.png
louis-reed-pwcKF7L4-no-unsplash.jpg

Min Son of Hanol IP & Law reports on a decision that should provide improved guidance in determining whether patents or approved drugs are eligible for a patent term extension in South Korea

In South Korea, a patent term extension (PTE) is available if a patent covers an approved drug or agrochemical product and it could not have been practised after grant due to regulatory approval requirements (Article 89 of the Korean Patent Act). In 2013, Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Patent Act (the Enforcement Decree) was amended to provide that a PTE is limited to a drug or agrochemical product that contains a “new substance” as an active ingredient and has obtained “first approval” in Korea, wherein the new substance refers to a substance whose “active moiety exhibiting a pharmacological effect” has a new chemical structure.

Since then, there has been controversy as to what the “new substance” or the “active moiety exhibiting the pharmacological effect” refers to.

Recently, the Korean Supreme Court rendered a decision setting out the criteria for interpreting the active moiety exhibiting the pharmacological effect in a PTE case, holding that the active moiety exhibiting the pharmacological effect in the approved pegylated drug is not peginterferon beta-1α but interferon beta-1α, which has the same chemical structure as that of the previously approved drug, and thus this case is not eligible for a PTE (Supreme Court Decision 2021Hu11070, rendered on July 25 2024).

Decisions at lower instances

In 2016, the applicant (Biogen MA Inc.) filed a PTE application for a patent covering the approved drug Plegridy (peginterferon beta-1α). However, the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) rejected this PTE application on the ground that Plegridy is the same as the earlier approved drug Avonex (interferon beta-1α) in terms of the indication (relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis) and the active moiety exhibiting the pharmacological effect (interferon beta-1α), and therefore its active ingredient does not correspond to a new substance as prescribed in the Enforcement Decree. KIPO’s position is that the pharmacological effect in the Enforcement Decree should be interpreted as an indication.

In 2020, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB) upheld KIPO’s rejection, determining that peginterferon beta-1α is not a new substance as described in the Enforcement Decree.

In 2022, the Intellectual Property High Court revoked the IPTAB decision, ruling that the active moiety exhibiting the pharmacological effect is peginterferon beta-1α rather than interferon beta-1α, for the following reasons:

  • The “pharmacological effect” means the effect of diagnosing, treating, alleviating, or preventing a specific disease through the pharmacological action inherent in the active ingredient of a drug product, not just referring to an “indication” for the drug; and

  • Due to the pegylation, peginterferon beta-1α has different biological activity (e.g., antiviral activity, anti-proliferative activity, or anti-angiogenic activity) and improved pharmacokinetic properties (e.g., reduced clearance, increased half-life, increased bioavailability) compared with interferon beta-1α, thereby resulting in improved efficacy in treating relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis.

The Korean Supreme Court’s decision

However, the Supreme Court eventually overturned the Intellectual Property High Court’s decision. Regarding the meaning of the “active moiety exhibiting the pharmacological effect” in the Enforcement Decree, the Supreme Court held the following:

  • In view of the purpose of the relevant regulations, the “active moiety exhibiting the pharmacological effect” should be interpreted as “a moiety of an active ingredient, wherein the moiety has an activity and exhibits the efficacy and effectiveness as stipulated in the drug product approval through its inherent pharmacological action”.

  • Even though a part that has no activity on its own is conjugated to the active moiety exhibiting the pharmacological effect of an existing approved drug, and thereby affecting the degree of the efficacy and effectiveness of the drug, this part does not exhibit the pharmacological effect as regards the efficacy and effectiveness of the drug. Thus, the circumstance that the part is conjugated to the “active moiety exhibiting the pharmacological effect” does not mean the entire conjugate can be considered the “active moiety exhibiting the pharmacological effect” as prescribed in the Enforcement Decree.

In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that peginterferon beta-1α is not a new substance as stipulated in the Enforcement Decree, and this case is not eligible for a PTE because:

  • The moiety exhibiting the therapeutic effect on relapsing multiple sclerosis is interferon beta-1α, and the PEG moiety conjugated to interferon beta-1α is a moiety that has no biological activity or therapeutic effect but merely affects the degree of the efficacy and effectiveness of interferon beta-1α; and

  • There is no direct evidence confirming that the three-dimensional chemical structure of interferon beta-1α has changed due to pegylation, and it is not recognised that the difference in the activity related to the treatment of multiple sclerosis is remarkable such that it cannot be achieved without involving a change in the stereochemical structure of interferon beta-1α.

Final thoughts on the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling

The recent Supreme Court ruling clarified the standard for interpreting “active moiety exhibiting a pharmacological effect” when determining whether an approved active ingredient is a new substance eligible for a PTE as stipulated in the Enforcement Decree.

In view of the standard above, a drug with modifications may be eligible for a PTE if the modification(s) can make a difference in the key structure (such as the stereochemical structure) of the active moiety thereof or in the efficacy and effectiveness compared with the previously approved drug.

It is expected that this standard will provide good guidance in determining whether patents or approved drugs are eligible for a PTE in Korea.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article