Dynamic Management of Claim Scope in Korea Using Divisional Applications

Patent prosecution is often perceived as a static sequence—filing, examination, allowance or rejection. In reality, maximizing the value of a patent and extending the life of IP assets in the marketplace calls for a more sophisticated and dynamic approach. From this perspective, we underscore the importance of a “dynamic claim strategy.”

In general, a dynamic claim strategy refers to the deliberate use of the U.S. continuation practice to proactively adjust and manage claim scope in step with market changes and technological advances even after the initial filing date. Within the Korean patent system, certain analogous strategic effects can be pursued by leveraging the 3-year window for requesting examination, deferred examination, and similar tools.

A well-drafted claim set that is timely refined can be a powerful shield that protects innovation and secures competitive advantage. Conversely, resting on a fixed claim scope risks neutralizing hard-won IP rights through market shifts or competitors’ design-around tactics. Accordingly, even aspects of an invention that did not appear critical at the initial filing should be continually managed so that, as the market matures, the claims still encompass features that gain commercial importance. This continuous management is a cornerstone of modern IP strategy.

1. Understanding U.S. Continuation Practice

The foundation of a dynamic claim strategy lies in the U.S. continuation practice, which allows a subsequent application to be filed based on the specification of an earlier, still-pending non-provisional (the “parent application”). The subsequent application may claim the parent’s filing date for subject matter disclosed in the parent.

Primary objectives of using U.S. continuation practice include:

• Securing diverse claim scope: Pursue broader or narrower claims, or claims directed to different embodiments than those in the parent.
• Improving claims: Refine claims in light of examiner feedback or market developments.
• Maintaining continuing rights: Preserve a “living” patent family that adapts to changing conditions.

Related U.S. application types include the following:

The variety of related-application mechanisms provides a toolkit for flexibly addressing situations that arise during prosecution and as an invention evolves.

2. Strategic Advantages of a Dynamic Claim Strategy via Continuations, etc.

Strategic use of U.S. continuation practice enables dynamic management of patent rights and delivers multiple benefits:

• Ongoing opportunities to tune scope: By keeping a key invention pending, you reserve the ability to continually modify and optimize claims to reflect market changes, competitor activity, and technological progress—transforming the portfolio from a static set of rights into a dynamic, long-term strategic asset.
• Proactive response to market shifts:
  • Policing competitor products: Draft new claims targeting competitor products/services launched after the parent’s priority date.
  • Capturing late-emerging importance: Even after the parent issues, pursue protection—via continuation, etc.—for aspects whose commercial value becomes apparent later.
• Stronger defense and bargaining position: The very possibility of ongoing claim refinement can bolster the patentee’s posture in potential infringement litigation and licensing negotiations.

3. Mechanisms for Adjusting Claim Scope as Markets Evolve

• Securing claims at varying breadths: File claims broader or narrower than those in the parent to optimize protection in light of market needs and competitive dynamics.
• Reviving canceled claims: Claims canceled during prosecution of the parent can be re-introduced and pursued in a continuation, offering a second chance to protect aspects that may have been relinquished too early.
• Leveraging examiner feedback: Use insights from the parent’s prosecution—office actions and rationales for rejections—to draft clearer, stronger continuation claims.
• Responding to competitors and new technologies:
  • Targeting competitor products: Draft claims that specifically read on products/services entering the market after the parent’s priority date.
  • Anticipating future tech: Where supported by the parent specification, pursue claims (e.g., via continuations) that cover foreseeable advancements—building a dense “patent thicket” around core technology to raise rivals’ barriers to entry.

4. Divergent Perspectives on Adjusting Claim Scope via Continuations

Stakeholders view the strategic use of U.S. continuation practice differently:

• Applicants: Value it as flexible means to secure comprehensive protection, adapt to market changes, and maximize IP value.
• Competitors: May criticize prolonged pendency or serial claims that appear to target competitor products as anti-competitive and uncertainty-enhancing. The recent Sonos v. Google matter illustrates the potential application of the doctrine of prosecution laches to long-pending continuation chains.
• Public interest: Emphasizes balancing innovation incentives against risks of over-assertion (e.g., patent thickets) that could hamper competition and slow diffusion. The USPTO’s past attempts to limit continuation filings reflected these concerns.

In short, while continuations can be a potent tool aligned with business goals, they carry risks such as added cost and exposure to prosecution laches. For competitors, others’ continuation strategies can obscure the ultimate contours of exclusionary rights, increasing infringement risk and chilling innovation or market entry. From a public-interest standpoint, striking the balance between promoting innovation and preventing undue competitive restraints is key.

5. Pros and Cons of U.S. Continuation-Type Strategies

U.S. continuation-type strategies present distinct advantages and drawbacks (see comparative table below).

6. Comparative Analysis of Related-Application Rules Across Major Jurisdictions

Mechanisms analogous to continuations vary by jurisdiction. Among major offices, the U.S. offers the most flexible framework for sustained claim-scope formation through continuation and continuation-in-part (CIP). Europe relies chiefly on divisionals under stricter constraints. Japan offers options such as conversion to utility model and divisionals. China has focused recently on patent term adjustment and extension. A robust global strategy hinges on a precise understanding of these jurisdictional differences.

7. Practical Considerations Under Korean Practice: Request for Examination and More

Although Korea’s tools differ from the broad flexibility of U.S. continuation practice, the Korean system provides ways to manage pendency and gain strategic time—most notably the 3-year period to request examination and the divisional application mechanism.

By deferring the request for examination until close to the 3-year deadline, an application can be kept pending longer. Even after allowance, a divisional may be filed within 3 months of the decision to grant, enabling you to register some claims while continuing to pursue others via divisional filings and delayed examination to secure rights.

Strategic use of Article 59 (Request for Examination), Article 40-3 (Deferred Examination), and Article 52 (Divisional Applications) allows applicants to keep applications alive, submit amendments/divisionals as needed, and time examination to suit commercial objectives. Monitoring market conditions and securing or strengthening rights at pivotal moments is the essence of a dynamic claim strategy.

8. Successful Execution Examples (U.S.-Centered)

• High continuation/divisional ratios: Companies like Sonos, Edwards Lifesciences, and eBay have high rates of patents issued via continuation-type filings—suggesting deliberate efforts to build broad portfolios around core technologies and remain agile. (That said, Sonos v. Google also highlights risks from long-pending chains.)
• Fast-moving/complex tech: Firms such as Palantir and Dolby use continuation practice to update claim scope in step with rapid product/technology iterations.
• Industry differences: The auto sector shows relatively lower continuation usage, possibly due to manufacturing/launch cycles, budget constraints for maintaining numerous related cases, or a preference for broad initial claims.
• Staged expansion: Companies like Apple, Ford, Nestlé, and IBM often begin with narrower claims and later secure broader coverage via continuation-type filings—protecting specific embodiments first, then expanding scope.

These examples illustrate that strategic use of U.S. continuation practice is valuable across industries, with application varying by sector characteristics and competitive context.

9. Actionable Use of Dynamic Claim Strategies to Protect Ongoing Innovation

Primarily implemented through U.S. continuation practice, the dynamic claim strategy reframes how we view patent rights: not as static documents fixed at grant, but as adaptive rights that evolve with technology and markets. Mechanisms such as continuations, divisionals, and CIPs enable long-term, strategic shaping of claim scope beyond the initial filing. While Korean tools like deferred examination and divisionals are more limited, they can still advance similar strategic goals.

Our recommendations ( Pine IP Firm):

• Proactive, integrated IP planning: Align filing and prosecution decisions with business objectives and product roadmaps.
• Continuous market/competitor monitoring: Identify opportunities to refine claims and maintain appropriate, durable coverage.
• Jurisdiction-specific mastery: For global businesses, understand differences among U.S. continuation practice and Korean deferred examination/divisionals, etc., to craft an effective worldwide strategy.
• Risk management: U.S. flexibility is valuable, but long pendency may invite prosecution laches risk; likewise, Korean deferred examination requires attention to restart timing after deferral lapses.
• Balanced drafting: Strike the right balance between breadth and specificity; a robust initial specification underpins successful follow-on filings.
• Expert guidance: Given legal and strategic complexity, consult seasoned patent professionals to tailor the optimal approach to your needs.

In today’s dynamic innovation environment, maintaining and sharpening competitive advantage increasingly requires embracing a responsible, strategic application of U.S. continuation practice and Korean tools such as deferred examination and divisional filings to realize a truly dynamic claim strategy.

We at Pine IP Firm stand ready to propose optimal strategies to protect and maximize the value of your IP. Thank you.

‍