Patent Infringement Litigation in Korea: Procedure, Evidence and Remedies

Patent infringement claims in Korea are civil actions decided by the courts. They are separate from invalidation and scope-confirmation trials before the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB). Korean civil procedure does not provide US-style party-led discovery, so infringement and damages evidence must be developed through targeted statutory and court procedures.

Court jurisdiction

First-instance civil actions concerning patents and specified industrial-property rights are concentrated in the district courts designated under Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Act. The current list comprises Seoul Central, Suwon, Daejeon, Daegu, Busan, and Gwangju District Courts under the applicable territorial rules. Article 24 also permits a qualifying action to be filed in Seoul Central District Court.

The Intellectual Property High Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over judgments on the merits in these patent infringement actions. A further appeal lies to the Supreme Court, which reviews legal issues rather than conducting a new trial of the entire factual record. Appeals concerning provisional dispositions follow the rules applicable to that proceeding and should be analyzed separately.

Pre-suit investigation

The claimant should verify ownership, exclusive-license standing where applicable, maintenance-fee status, remaining term, asserted claims, accused acts, potential defendants, jurisdiction, and the recoverable damages period. The same review should address validity, license, exhaustion, prior use, and any standards-related defense relevant to the matter.

Potential evidence includes lawfully purchased products, technical manuals, regulatory records, public product documents, testing, reverse engineering, source inspection obtained by lawful means, and market evidence. A preservation protocol should identify products, software versions, dates, custodians, test methods, and chain of custody before a warning letter or complaint changes the available evidence.

Pleadings and technical submissions

The complaint identifies the Korean patent, asserted claims, accused acts, legal theory, and requested relief. The defendant may deny infringement and raise invalidity and other defenses. Either side may initiate a related IPTAB proceeding where the statutory requirements are met.

The parties submit briefs, claim charts, prior art, product documents, test results, and expert material. The infringement analysis ordinarily requires construction of the asserted claim and comparison of every required element with the accused product or process. Damages issues may be addressed after the court has organized the liability issues, although case management varies.

Evidence procedures

Current Korean procedure relies on targeted mechanisms rather than open-ended disclosure. Depending on the facts, the available procedures include:

• preservation of evidence under the Civil Procedure Act;
• orders to submit specified documents or materials;
• inspection and expert appraisal;
• requests for information held by public bodies or third parties;
• examination of witnesses or parties; and
• the Patent Act duty to present the specific content and manner of the accused party's own conduct when it denies the patentee's specific infringement allegations.

Under Article 126-2 of the Patent Act, a party denying the specific content, manner, or form of alleged infringement must present its own specific conduct. If that party asserts a justifiable reason for inability to do so, the court may order submission of materials needed to assess the assertion. Confidentiality and trade-secret protections apply under the relevant provisions.

A document or material request should identify the claim element, accused version, relevant period, custodian or system, and the reason the material is necessary. A broad request for all technical documents does not provide the same basis for a targeted court order.

Proposals for an expanded Korean evidence-disclosure system have been under legislative discussion. They should not be described as enacted procedures unless and until the relevant legislation takes effect.

Parallel IPTAB proceedings

An accused infringer may petition the IPTAB to invalidate the asserted patent. A patentee may request a positive scope-confirmation trial, and an accused party may request a negative scope-confirmation trial concerning a specified product or process.

The civil action and IPTAB trial are separate proceedings. The IPTAB does not award civil damages or issue a civil injunction. An IPTAB decision may be challenged in the Intellectual Property High Court and may affect litigation strategy, but the civil court applies the legal effect of the relevant decision and record in accordance with Korean law.

A civil court may refuse enforcement when an invalidity defense is established under the governing doctrine, while formal invalidation of the patent proceeds through the IPTAB and judicial-review route. The timing, petition scope, amendments, and evidentiary positions in the two proceedings should be coordinated to avoid inconsistent records.

Injunctions

A patentee or exclusive licensee may seek an injunction against ongoing or threatened infringement. The requested relief may include disposal of infringing products or removal of facilities used for infringement where the statutory conditions are satisfied.

A preliminary injunction requires an evidentiary showing sufficient for interim relief. The court considers infringement, validity risk, urgency, comparative harm, and other circumstances relevant to the need for a provisional order. The application may therefore require substantial claim, product, and validity evidence before the action on the merits is resolved.

A permanent injunction may issue after infringement and the requirements for relief are established. The requested order should be framed with reference to the accused products or processes and its effect on inventory, supply, customers, design changes, and regulatory requirements.

Damages

Article 128 of the Patent Act provides several routes for proving damages. They include the patentee's lost-profit measure subject to the statutory conditions, a presumption based on the infringer's profit, a reasonable-royalty measure, and judicial estimation when damage is established but proof of the precise amount is extremely difficult.

When infringement is found to be willful, the court may award an amount not exceeding five times the damages otherwise recognized under Article 128. The five-times ceiling took effect on August 21, 2024, subject to the amendment's transitional provisions.

The statutory factors for enhanced damages include the infringer's superior position, degree of intent or awareness of likely harm, scale of harm, economic benefit, duration and frequency, criminal fine, financial condition, and remedial efforts. Enhanced damages are discretionary; willfulness does not automatically result in the maximum multiplier.

Other relief may include measures to restore business reputation. Patent infringement may also create criminal exposure, but criminal procedure, intent requirements, complaint rules, proof, and remedies require a separate analysis.

Appeal, duration, and settlement terms

The first-instance court decides infringement, asserted defenses, and remedies on the developed record. The Intellectual Property High Court reviews the appealed technical and legal issues in a merits appeal. The Supreme Court then reviews questions of law.

Duration depends on the technology, number of patents and accused products, evidence procedures, parallel IPTAB matters, and appeals. A case may require several years through final appeal.

Settlement terms should address the patents and products covered, future versions, affiliates, validity challenges, foreign proceedings, confidentiality, supply continuity, payment security, audit rights where appropriate, and enforcement. The commercial objective may be an injunction, design change, license, market exit, cross-license, damages recovery, or a combination of these outcomes.

Foreign parties and adjudication

A foreign owner or exclusive licensee may sue on an enforceable Korean patent if it has standing and the jurisdictional requirements are satisfied. A foreign patent does not create an infringement right in Korea.

Korean patent infringement actions are decided by professional judges, not juries. International divisions at Seoul Central District Court and the Intellectual Property High Court may permit qualifying proceedings in English under the applicable statutory conditions and court approval.

This article provides general information and is not litigation advice for a specific patent, product, or dispute.

Official references

• Current Korean Patent Act
• Seoul Central District Court: IP jurisdiction
• Intellectual Property High Court of Korea English brochure
• MOIP patent trials and appeals
• MOIP notice on five-times damages

Related South Korea IP guidance

• IPTAB Patent Trials in Korea: Invalidation and Scope Confirmation
• Evidence Collection for Patent Litigation in Korea
• Trade Secret Protection and Enforcement in South Korea

Legal and editorial review: July 16, 2026. Korea's current IP authority is the Ministry of Intellectual Property (MOIP), formerly KIPO.