Korea widens infringement net to include exporting

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

Cookies Settings

Korea widens infringement net to include exporting

Sponsored by

HANOL ClassHankyul logo 2.png
Fisherman casting net

Min Son of Hanol IP & Law explains how a Patent Act revision empowers South Korean patentees to take direct action against export-based infringement, enhancing enforcement and aligning the law with other intellectual property regimes

The South Korean Patent Act has been amended to include “exporting” as one of the acts encompassed by patent infringement. The new law takes effect on July 22 2025.

Expansion of the acts constituting patent infringement

Article 2 of the Patent Act defines what constitutes “practising an invention”. The revised law adds “exporting” to the text of Article 2, which now reads:

"a) In the case of a product invention, producing, using, assigning, leasing, exporting, or importing the product or offering to assign or lease the product (including displaying the product for the purpose of assigning or leasing; hereinafter, the same shall apply);

b) In the case of a method invention, using the method or offering to use the process;

c) In the case of a method invention for producing a product, in addition to the acts specified in item b), using, assigning, leasing, exporting, or importing the product produced by the method or offering to assign or lease the product."

Before the revision, if an unauthorised third party exported patented products overseas, it was not considered patent infringement. Nonetheless, when calculating patent damages, courts have been known to consider both domestic and overseas sales made by infringers, to the extent that a causal relationship was recognised.

Under such circumstances, patent holders seeking to block export activities had to rely on protection provided by laws other than the Patent Act, such as customs seizures through the Customs Act or measures provided by the Korea Trade Commission (e.g., the Act on the Investigation of Unfair International Trade Practices and Remedy against Injury to Industry).

As global trade increases, import and export activities are, naturally, occurring more frequently. The current revision is therefore timely. Since the Patent Act now allows export prevention and damage claims to be pursued simultaneously, patent infringers can be more effectively deterred.

This revision aligns the Patent Act with the Design Protection Act and the Trademark Act, which already define exporting as a potentially infringing act. The amendments also apply to the Utility Model Act mutatis mutandis.

The revision’s advantages for patentees

The revision is expected to have several positive impacts on patent enforcement:

  • Patent rights can now be enforced against export activities themselves. In the past, patent infringement could only be claimed under the Patent Act if there were other activities associated with the export, such as “producing” (manufacturing) or “assigning” the patented products. Now, activities such as brokering can also be enjoined and subject to damages.

  • Even before the law was revised, in some decisions, courts considered the infringer’s overseas sales revenue when calculating the amount of damages awarded. With a clearer basis in the Patent Act, patentees can now more actively claim damages based on overseas sales.

  • When infringing products are exported to multiple countries, distribution can be effectively blocked by prohibiting their exportation from Korea. Even if the patentee holds corresponding patents in multiple countries, a ban at the export stage would be a far more cost-effective option than initiating litigation in each infringing country.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Vice presidents Shinya Jitsuhiro and Hirohisa Suzuki discuss litigation trends in Japan, recruitment challenges and clients’ international expansion
IP boutique Petillion represented IKEA in the dispute, which concerned the use of the multinational’s trademarks in an immigration-focused campaign. The firm tells Managing IP how it secured the outcome
The Pizzeys-Griffith Hack integration was designed to create a stronger Australian IP platform but with several ex-Pizzeys principals now gone, the deal's success may depend on where clients place their trust
Thomas Lonsdale and Hsu Min Chung of HGF explore the practical impact of the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G1/25 and its interplay with G1/24
The firm’s recent IP hire and launch of a new robotics industry group signal an effort to capture work emerging from AI entering the physical world
Another firm sets up shop in Dallas, bringing its patent disputes capabilities to one of the US’s busiest litigation venues
Entrepreneurial IP lawyers are still launching specialist firms, but increasingly with larger teams, broader coverage and greater infrastructure than the boutique model once implied
Jevon Louis explains how Covid led to a focus on local clients, discusses why mediation is successful in Singapore and reflects on the growing demand for AI advice
An increase in instructions from domestic companies and litigation for international clients are driving success for the Chinese IP firm, according to two lead partners
Ankur Sangal said he wants his team, nearly 30-strong already, to respond to a growing demand for specialist, commercially focused IP advice in a ‘rapidly evolving’ Indian market
Gift this article