Amended rules in Korea regarding inventorship

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

Amended rules in Korea regarding inventorship

Sponsored by

25LeeInternationalSouthKorea.png

Lee International speaks about the Korean inventorship rules

Recently, two significant amendments related to inventorship have been made to the Enforcement Rules of the Korean Patent Act, which are essential for those seeking to file a patent in Korea. These amendments aim to improve the previous administrative practice of managing inventor information by formally collecting and utilizing it as industrial property data, thereby strengthening the country’s industrial competitiveness.

1. Improvement of the Inventorship Correction Procedure

In the past, there were cases where individuals without actual inventive contribution were added as inventors after the issuance of the notice of allowance. To prevent such misuse, the amendment now partially limits the timeframe for correcting inventorship, which was previously unrestricted. Additionally, documents that were once required only after patent registration must now also be submitted during prosecution.

According to the amended rules, patent applicants are no longer permitted to add inventors between the notice of allowance (NOA) and the patent registration. During this period, only limited corrections are allowed, such as correcting typographical errors, updating addresses, or changing names and transliterations, provided the listed inventors remain unchanged. However, inventorship can still be corrected from the time of filing until the issuance of the NOA, as well as after patent registration, as before.

Previously, a simple statement of reasons was sufficient to correct inventors during the prosecution of the patent application. Under the amended rules, however, supporting documents verifying the inventor’s identity are now required, including: i) a statement explaining the reasons for the correction, and ii) a declaration signed or sealed by both the patent applicant and all inventors involved in correction.

These new requirements apply to any inventorship correction documents submitted on or after November 1, 2024.

2. Requirement of Inventor Identification Information in Patent Applications

To systematically manage and utilize industrial property information collected and generated by the Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), the Act on the Management and Utilization of Industrial Property Information was enacted and has been in effect since August 7, 2024. This Act grants the Commissioner the authority to collect, process, and utilize publicly available industrial property information, as well as provide the processed data to support the effective planning and implementation of research and development initiatives and technology/industry-related strategies. Additionally, to safeguard technologies crucial to national security or significant national interests, the Act authorizes the Commissioner to use pending industrial property information or share it with relevant national administrative agencies when deemed necessary.

In line with this, the amended rules require patent applications to specify the citizenship of each inventor. However, submission of supporting documents, such as citizenship certificates, is not necessary.

These changes have been applied to all patent applications filed on or after November 1, 2024. Additionally, specifying the citizenship of each inventor is mandatory for both new applications and divisional applications.

3. Summary

The amend rules to introduce changes to inventorship correction procedure and inventor Identification information requirements at the time of filing, are summarized in the table below.

 

 

Before November 1, 2024

From November 1, 2024

Correction to

Inventorship

After filing and until a notice of allowance (NOA) is issued

- Permissible

- No supporting evidence required

- Permissible

- Declaration signed by the applicant and the inventors involved in the correction required

After issuance of a NOA and until patent registration

- Permissible

- No supporting evidence required

- Limited

- Correction is possible only in cases where the inventor’s identity remains unchanged (e.g., minor typographical error, name changes, transliteration difference, etc.)

After patent registration

- Permissible

- Declaration signed by the applicant and all inventors involved in the correction required

Same as the current requirement

Citizenship of each inventor

when filing a new patent

application or divisional

application

Not required

Required

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
The chief technology officer remit, which has been created as the firm is building its litigation team, will include expanding the use of AI in patent and legal work and automating manual processes
Former Hoyng Rokh Moneiger partner Laura Alonso, who brought her team to ECIJA in March, discusses plans to expand further and why ECIJA’s ‘IP DNA’ is helping broaden her work
Amita Haylock discusses building an integrated Asia practice as clients increasingly demand that firms combine IP, technology and data expertise
Gift this article