South Korea IP Counsel RFP Requirements

A South Korea IP counsel request for proposals should require comparable information on scope, staffing, prosecution, reporting, security, transition, and price. Common assumptions and response tables allow the in-house team to evaluate substantive differences between firms.

The RFP should disclose enough portfolio information for staffing and pricing without providing unnecessary confidential material before conflicts and confidentiality arrangements are complete.

Scope and portfolio data

The company profile should state:

• the technologies, products, and business units within scope;
• the approximate number of pending applications and granted rights;
• expected annual PCT national-phase, Paris Convention, and direct filings;
• typical claim counts and specification length;
• expected office action, appeal, opinion, transaction, and dispute volume;
• source-document and instruction languages;
• principal jurisdictions in the corresponding patent families; and
• portfolio-system, e-billing, invoice, and accrual requirements.

Conflicts and independence

The RFP should identify competitors, transaction counterparties, frequent adverse parties, and entities treated as affiliates. Each candidate should describe the information required for its conflict search and the procedure for identifying later-arising conflicts.

The response should distinguish legal conflicts from business sensitivities and describe controls for information access, lateral hires, experts, translators, and other vendors.

Named team and responsibility

The proposal should provide a matter-level staffing plan containing:

• the relationship partner and escalation contact;
• responsible Korean patent attorneys by technology;
• patent engineers, translators, paralegals, and docket personnel;
• the persons who draft and approve substantive work;
• English-language capability and time-zone coverage;
• backup responsibility for absences and urgent deadlines;
• relevant prosecution, appeal, opinion, and litigation experience; and
• the procedure for notifying the client of team changes.

Anonymized work examples may demonstrate relevant experience without disclosing client identities or confidential facts.

Prosecution method

The response should explain:

• the technical and legal review of foreign-language specifications and Korean translations;
• terminology and position consistency across related patent families;
• criteria for examiner interviews, divisional applications, reexamination, and appeals;
• review of amendment support and enforcement consequences;
• technology-specific treatment of software, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, chemistry, biotechnology, and medical devices; and
• eligibility review for preferential examination and the Patent Prosecution Highway.

Current Ministry guidance provides for first examination within approximately three months after the preferential-examination decision in PPH and PCT-PPH cases. The proposal should state how the firm confirms eligibility, claim correspondence, and required documents. See the Ministry Patent Prosecution Highway guidance.

Reporting and service levels

The RFP should define the required reporting fields and time periods:

• receipt reporting on the same or next business day;
• the period for an initial substantive report;
• a standard office action report containing recommendation, alternatives, deadline, and estimated cost;
• deadline reminders and escalation dates;
• monthly or quarterly portfolio reports;
• responsible-person and matter-status fields;
• treatment of urgent or incomplete instructions; and
• invoice, currency, and accrual formats.

A common redacted reporting exercise can be used to compare legal analysis, clarity, and recommendation quality.

Docketing, information security, and continuity

Each candidate should describe deadline-entry controls, independent verification, Korean holiday treatment, and missed-instruction escalation. The information-security response should address:

• identity and access management, including multifactor authentication;
• encryption in transit and at rest;
• approved and prohibited uses of generative AI with client data;
• incident detection and breach notification;
• controls applied to vendors and translators;
• backup, recovery, and business-continuity testing; and
• document retention and secure destruction.

Portfolio transition

A transition proposal should cover the complete matter list, deadline reconciliation, powers of attorney, electronic and original files, pending instructions, unpaid official fees, annual-fee responsibility, and confirmation of representative changes before the Ministry.

Applications and patents with deadlines within 30, 60, and 90 days after appointment should be identified separately. Urgent deadline acceptance and verification should precede general file organization.

Pricing schedule

All candidates should use one pricing table that separates:

• professional fees;
• translation and per-word charges;
• official fees;
• third-party disbursements;
• taxes; and
• currency, exchange-rate, and bank-charge assumptions.

Repeatable tasks may use fixed fees. Work that cannot be reliably defined in advance may use hourly rates or a stated range. The proposal should state whether reporting, reminders, routine correspondence, supervising-attorney review, and electronic file delivery are included.

Performance measures and implementation

The proposed service measures may include reporting timeliness, invoice accuracy, budget variance, response time, deadline exceptions, and findings from agreed quality reviews. Each measure should state its data source, reporting period, and treatment of client-caused delay.

The RFP should also state the evaluation criteria and weights, interview format, reference process, decision date, planned start date, transition period, and any pilot arrangement.

Related Korean IP guidance

• Selecting Patent Counsel in South Korea
• Changing Korean Patent Counsel and Protecting Deadlines
• Korean Patent Counsel Fees and Cost Categories

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

This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Korean law and Ministry practice may change, and the appropriate procurement requirements depend on the portfolio and engagement.