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

Rebekah Gay discusses overcoming self-doubt, supporting the next generation of women lawyers, and how changing client demands are reshaping IP practice
New filing data suggests Germany's grip on UPC litigation remains strong, while Bardehle Pagenberg, Arnold Ruess, Hogan Lovells and Carpmaels notch up notable cases
In 27 years, KASS has expanded to seven countries in southeast Asia and is now eyeing further growth opportunities. Its CEO shares her perspective
Mine Güner discusses bridging law and business, taking the initiative, and why Taylor Swift helped put copyright on the map
Cindy Goh discusses why she launched Cheang & Ariff's IP department, the improving litigation environment in Malaysia and what to consider when using AI
Increased focus on adding patent litigation depth to the firm’s Dallas office was behind the boutique’s most recent hires
IPH's Canadian acquisitions are paying off on paper, but a couple of strong years may not be enough to show that the group's strategy has truly won over the market
Examiner statistics could help patent prosecution practitioners tailor strategies, turning an area of high variability into a potential competitive advantage
The England and Wales High Court’s ruling in Accord v Novartis may not rewrite the law on plausibility, but it does signal a pragmatic approach that could provide greater certainty for life sciences innovators
Firms with established sports relationships and specialised expertise are well positioned to capture the market’s expanded pool of IP work
Gift this article