Comparison of U.S. Patent Systems

This is a guide comparing the U.S. patent system with the Korean patent system. We summarize the main differences between the two systems in five aspects: application procedures, examination criteria, registration requirements, patent protection scope, and litigation and dispute resolution methods. Each item is explained with practical tips and examples.

Comparison of Application Procedures

Both the United States and Korea can file patent applications directly with their respective patent offices or enter through PCT international applications. However, there are some differences in the detailed procedures and strategies.

Language and Document Requirements:

• KoreaThe official language is Korean. You can initially file in English, but you must submit a Korean translation within 14 months from the priority date.
• United StatesAn English specification is required, and if you want to file in another language, you must immediately submit an English translation.
• South Korea requires a Power of Attorney (POA) upon application, whereas in the U.S., lawyers/agents can generally file directly.

Priority Claims (Paris Convention):

• Both countries recognize a 12-month priority claim period.
• However, there are differences in the priority restoration rights, United StatesIn cases where the deadline is missed due to procedural error, retroactive priority can be restored within a certain period (in accordance with the enforcement of the Patent Law Treaty), Koreadoes not allow for priority restoration.
• For example, if you file in the U.S. 1 year and 1 month after filing in Korea, a late priority restoration process may be possible in the U.S., but not in Korea.

Entry into PCT International Application:

• If you enter the United States and Korea through international applications, United Statesmust enter the domestic phase within 30 months (partial extension possible). Koreais allowed up to 31 months.
• Submission of a Korean translation is mandatory when entering Korea.
• Both countries utilize the International Search Report (ISR) and preliminary international examination results, and through the Patent Examination Highway (PPH) program, one can receive expedited examination from one patent office in the other.

Types of Applications and Strategies:

• United StatesThere is a provisional application system, allowing you to secure a relatively easy filing date before filing a formal application.
• KoreaSince 2020, a provisional specification application system has been introduced, allowing you to secure recognition of the filing date without being restricted by formality.
• Additionally, in the United States, the continuation system allows you to continue filing with the same content and have different claims examined. In contrast, Korea only recognizes divisional filings and does not have the concept of continuous filing like the United States.
  
  • For example, if only part of the claims are allowed in a U.S. application, the rejected claim can be pursued again as a separate continuing application, but in Korea, it must only be handled as a divisional application. Korean divisional applications always separate the content under application into independent inventions, and unlike the United States, there is no concept of Partial Continuing Application (CIP) for the convenience of applicants.

Considerations when applying:

• United States The applicant must state the inventor and submit a declaration, Koreaonly inventor information is required; there is no separate oath system.
• Also, since 2013, the United States has operated on a first-to-file system similar to Korea, but in cases of fraudulent patent acquisition, rights holders can be challenged through procedures such as derivation. Korea also follows the first-to-file system, and there is no procedure to remedy the rights of first inventors; if multiple applications are made for the same invention, only the most advanced applicant may be registered.

Practical example:

• If Korean company A has an invention filed in Korea on January 1, 2024, and the same invention is filed in the United States, it must file an application in the U.S. on January 1, 2025. You must file a priority claim beforehand.
• If you first filed as Provisional in the United States, you can claim priority by submitting a translation specification to Korea within 12 months.
• In the United States, even if some claims are rejected after filing, you can change the scope of claims through a continuing application and attempt again. However, in Korea, it should be noted that if you do not file a divisional application in a timely manner, it is difficult to file additional applications with the same content.

Examination Criteria Comparison: Patent Requirements, Specification, Examiner Approach

Both the US USPTO and Korea KIPO evaluate novelty, non-identity (inventive step), and industrial applicability through patent requirements, but there are differences in detailed standards and examination practices.

Patentability requirements:

• Both countries apply absolute novelty standards, treating global known technologies as prior art.
• Inventiveness is called non-obviousness in the United States and is conceptually similar to Korea's inventiveness (inventive difficulty).
• However, in the United States, a separate assessment of patent eligibility is important. For example, if it involves an abstract idea or natural law, a patent is not granted unless there is a substantial technical implementation (such as the Alice precedent).
• In Korea, natural laws themselves, mathematical methods, and simple mental activities are not considered inventions, but unlike the U.S., they tend to judge based on industrial applicability and clear lack of technical skill rather than complex abstract judgments.
• Additionally, Korea explicitly states that medical procedures are not patentable, so surgical methods and similar applications are rejected. In contrast, in the United States, surgeries and treatment methods can be patented (however, there are restrictions on medical professionals' actions in the case of infringement lawsuits), which is a major difference.

Specification (Specification) Requirements:

• U.S. patent law requires complete enablement, written description, and the commencement of the best model. Among these, the best embodiments must be included in the specification by law, but violations cannot be grounds for patent invalidation.
• Korea requires the invention to be described in the specification clearly and completely without a requirement, but unlike the United States, there is no requirement to commence an optimal embodiment.
• Additionally, in U.S. examination, if a claim is not supported in the statement, it is considered a new matter and is rejected; in Korea, if the claim is not supported by the statement, it becomes a refusal and grounds for invalidation.
• When filing in the United States, the scope of claims must be reasonably supported by the specification, and Korea is similar. However, U.S. courts have often strictly applied the requirement of descriptive support (e.g., Amgen v. Sanofi), so it is important to describe in detail from the initial stage to a wide range of variant examples when preparing the U.S. application specification.

Prior art information and background description:

• United StatesApplicants have an Identity Disclosure Obligation (IDS) and must actively submit relevant prior art literature. If this is neglected, the patent may later be invalidated due to inequitable conduct.
• KoreaSince 2011, it has been required that the specification include prior art that forms the basis for inventions. In other words, if relevant background information is not included at the beginning of the statement, corrections will be required during the review process.
  
  • However, this requirement does not impose the obligation on applicants to submit a prior art list like the U.S. IDS, nor does it require additional prior art to be submitted once background art is listed.
  • For example, in the Korean specification, you should mention something like "As a prior art, this or such technology is known in OO literature," and if something is missing, it can be corrected, but this does not invalidate the patent.
• On the other hand, U.S. applicants must separately submit documents submitted by Korea or EPO examiners to the USPTO as IDS, and missing this can cause problems later (a fundamental difference between the two systems).

Request for review and duration:

• KoreaThere is a post-application examination request system, so you must request examination within three years from the filing date. Failure to do so results in the application being withdrawn.
• United Statesis considered to have been automatically requested for examination upon filing, so there is no separate claim procedure (examination costs are included in the application fee).
• As a result, Korean applicants can delay examination by up to three years if necessary, which they use in their application strategies. For example, after observing market conditions, you can decide whether to request an examination.
• In contrast, in the United States, such delay strategies are restricted, and to delay examination, you must use provisional filings or continued filings.

Screening speed and method:

• The Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) is known for its fast and intensive examinations, with an average application registration time of about 2~2.5 years.
• United StatesDepending on the technical field, it is common for it to take 2~3 years or more.
• In Korea, the expedited examination system allows for urgent applications (such as concerns over counterfeit infringement) or PPH targets, where the first round of examination can occur within a few months. The U.S. also has fast-track review systems like Track One, but the additional costs are high.
• There is also a difference in the scope of claims examiners examine at once, as Korean examiners tend to grant or reject all claims in a single application at once. In other words, if some claims have grounds for refusal, the entire application is rejected, and even if the rejected claims are deleted, the applicant must file a divisional application to re-examine the remaining claims.
• On the other hand, the U.S. examiner notifies between acceptable and rejected claims, and the applicant can obtain a patent with the remaining allowed claims by deleting only the rejected claims. In other words, in the United States, it is possible to grant patents for only some claims within a single application, but in Korea, in principle, all claims must be permitted for a registration decision to be made.

Communication with Examiners:

• United StatesThe examiner interview system is active, allowing applicants or their representatives to explain the reasons for rejection and exchange opinions with the examiner either by phone or in person. It is common to clear up misunderstandings and discuss correction directions through these oral interviews.
• KoreaThe formal interview system is limited, and most responses are made through written submission and revision.
• Therefore, in U.S. applications, it is often necessary to actively consider interaction with examiners, while in Korean applications, persuasion is often required with the specification and opinion statement alone.

Practical example:

• United StatesWhen filing a software-related invention, you should prepare in advance for the possibility of abstract idea rejection under 35 USC §101. On the other hand, the same invention KoreaOnce the technical features ("use of natural laws") are present, the issue of subject eligibility is not significant, and the focus should be on inventive step compared to obvious prior art.
• Additionally, in U.S. applications, if the examiner allows some claims and denies others, the rejected claims can be pursued through a continuing application strategy.
• In Korea, since the entire application can be rejected in such situations, it is necessary to classify claims early, leaving important claims in the main application and dividing additional claims into divisional filings.
• For example, in a Korean application, if claims 1-5 of claims 1-10 are core inventions and 6-10 are peripheral inventions, if there is a risk of rejection of claims 6-10, separating them as divisional applications in advance is a strategy to facilitate the registration of principal application (1-5).

Prior art search and post-registration maintenance

‍There are also differences between the U.S. and Korea regarding the procedures and requirements for registration after a patent is granted. It also examines practical differences in prior art investigation and the use of official documents.Utilizing prior art research and review materials:

• USPTOand Korea KIPO In all cases, examiners examine both domestic and international patent literature as well as non-patent literature.
• Korean applications often include a detailed prior art search report in the first Office Action and actively cite overseas publications from countries such as Japan and Europe.
• U.S. examiners may refer to the results of international patent applications (PCT) or foreign examinations (e.g., EPO rejection decisions), but this is not entirely mandatory. However, if the applicant submits prior patents cited in foreign examination through IDS, the U.S. examiner will consider this.
• In Korea, applicants often do not need to submit such materials to have examiners search for U.S./European application documents through digital access.
• For example, if the same invention is filed in both the U.S. and Korea, you do not need to separately submit a statement of refusal and citations received in the U.S. to the Korean Intellectual Property Office, but you can apply for a PPH and reflect the results of the U.S. patent in Korean examination.
• In the U.S., conversely, if a Korean patent is obtained first, it is preferable to request a PPH from the USPTO based on that information to accelerate examination and submit the cited Korean literature to the IDS.

Post-registration decision procedure:

• United StatesWhen a Notification of Allowance is granted, you pay the Issue Fee and the patent certificate is issued about a few months later.
• KoreaOnce a patent decision is made, the applicant is notified of the registration fee payment, and the registration fee must be paid within three months, including the annual fees for years 1~3, for the patent right to be established.
  
  • In Korea, there is no annual leave fee during the application process; the initial annual fee is paid at registration, and thereafter, the annual fee is paid based on the registration date.
• United StatesInstead of paying annual leave fees for the first few years at registration, maintenance fees are paid starting from the 3.5th year after the patent.
  
  • Therefore, U.S. patents do not initially incur maintenance costs, but you must pay increasing amounts from the 4th, 8th, and 12th years to maintain the 20-year protection period.
• Korea pays annually, but you can also pay several years' worth in advance.

Annual fees and number of claims:

• KoreaThe annual leave fee is calculated proportionally to the number of claims. The more claims you have, the higher the annual costs, so in practice, it is best to organize claims with overlapping scopes before registration.
• United StatesThe silver maintenance fee is independent of the number of claims, but if the number of claims at the filing stage exceeds 3 independent/20 total, an excess claim fee is paid.
• Therefore, when filing in Korea, strategies are needed to reduce unnecessary claims by considering long-term costs.

Prior art disclosure and third-party information provision:

• United StatesThere is a third-party information provision system after the application is published, allowing third parties to submit relevant prior documents to the USPTO, but this is uncommon.
• KoreaWithin six months after the publication of the patent gazette, anyone can submit prior art not reflected during examination through a patent cancellation application and request the cancellation of the patent. After this period, only interested parties can file an invalidation review (invalidation review).
• In the United States, there is also an IPR (Interpartes Trial) system after patent registration, allowing third parties (interested parties) to file invalidation claims with the Intellectual Property Office (PTAB), which serves a similar role to invalidation trials in Korea.

Practical example:

• When filing in Korea, you must mention at least one or two relevant background technologies in your statement. If you miss this, the examiner will point out that you need to correct it, so when preparing the Korean specification, it's important to make it a habit to include relevant background information, even if it seems trivial.
• On the other hand, while there is no need to write lengthy background technology in the U.S. specification, it is important to remember that after filing, you must submit relevant domestic and international patent documents via IDS.
• Also, if a patent is first registered in the U.S., using that information to request a priority PPH examination in Korea, the average examination period of 2~2.5 years can be shortened to just a few months.
• Conversely, if you have obtained a Korean patent first, you should notify the U.S. application and submit prior documents cited in Korean examination via IDS to the examiner, which can help facilitate the examination process.

Scope of patent protection, claim interpretation, and equitable theory

The scope of patent rights is determined by claims, and there are significant differences between the U.S. and Korea in how they interpret them and apply the doctrine of equity.

Interpretation of claims at the examination stage:

• USPTOapplies the "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI)" principle during application examination. In other words, if the statement does not have a specific definition, the claim phrase is interpreted as broadly as possible to compare with prior art.
• Korea The Patent Office also interprets the claims reasonably broadly during examination, but rather than the codified BRI principles like in the United States, they consider both the claim text and the specification when making judgments.
• Therefore, Korean examiners may interpret the claim broadly if the scope is ambiguous and may reject novelty or inventive step, so it is advisable to define ambiguous terms or specify them specifically.

Interpretation of the scope of claims at the patent enforcement stage (litigation):

• United StatesIn this case, the judge determines the meaning of the claim phrase through the Markman trial (claim interpretation hearing), and according to Phillips precedent, considers intrinsic evidence such as the specification and prosecution history to interpret the meaning as understood by a skilled technician.
  
  • In the past, juries were sometimes left to make decisions, but now judges make professional decisions.
• KoreaTraditionally, there has been a strong tendency to interpret claim phrases literally. In particular, Korean courts previously held the position that "when the wording of the claims is clear, the contents described in the specification should not be underutilized," but in 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that "to understand the technical meaning of the claims, the invention's purpose and effect must be interpreted objectively and rationally," clearly recognizing the scope of claims interpretation based on the specification.
  
  • Following this ruling (Canon vs. Alphachem), Korean courts have also sought to reflect the meaning intended by the patent holder to distinguish prior art by examining the context of the specification in which the claim phrase appears and interpreting the significance of the invention.
• Therefore, both the U.S. and South Korea currently use the specification as an important basis when interpreting claims, and when some terms can be interpreted broadly or narrowly, they tend to limit them according to the specification. This also helps maintain patent validity (interpreting it too broadly can easily be incorporated into prior art and increase the risk of invalidation).

Doctrine of Equivalents:

• United Statesand Korea All recognize the concept of equivalent infringement, and even if the wording of the claims does not exactly match, if the invention is essentially the same, it is considered infringement.
• The U.S. standard for applying the doctrine of equality is summarized by the Triple Identity Test, which is considered equivalent infringement if the elements of the infringing product are substantially identical in terms of claimed elements and function, method, and result.
• Similarly, Korea compares structure, function, and effect to determine substantial identity.
• For example, if a patented invention consists of components A+B+C and the competing product is A'+B+C (where A' is slightly different from A), and the difference is substantially the same in function and effect and can be easily conceived by an ordinary technician, the Korean court may recognize equivalent infringement.

Limitations and exceptions of egalitarianism:

• Both countries have clearly defined the limits of egalitarianism.
  
  1. The doctrine of equality cannot be applied to elements already known by prior art or to variations that a skilled practitioner can easily come up with. In other words, even if the patent scope is expanded under the doctrine of equity, it cannot be extended to cover prior art (in the U.S., this is called the Formstein defense or the defense within the scope of known art).
  2. The scope intentionally excluded during the application process cannot be evenly restored. This is called the prosecution history estoppel, which prevents the claim of equal infringement later on elements abandoned through amendments or assertions during the application.
     
     • For example, if a specific scope was removed from claims in the U.S. to avoid patent office rejection, a product with substantially identical elements to the deleted portion cannot be claimed for equitable infringement.
     • Korea has recently adopted this principle in Supreme Court precedents, and does not apply the doctrine of equality to elements that applicants have explicitly excluded.
  3. In the United States, under the All Elements Rule, if each component of a claim is completely omitted without corresponding equivalents, it does not constitute a breach of equilibriation. In Korea, there was once a Seoul High Court ruling stating that "even if some elements are completely omitted, if their functions are replaced with others, equal recognition is possible," but now the position is that there must be a structure corresponding to all elements of the claim.

Differences in interpretation by claim type:

• United StatesFor means-plus-function claims, interpretation is limited to the corresponding structure described in the specification under 35 USC §112(f).
• KoreaIf similar instrumental expressions are used, interpretation will take into account the implementation means specified in the specification.
• Regarding product-by-process claims, the U.S. treats products identically regardless of manufacturing methods, but Korea tends not to treat different manufacturing methods as the same scope. However, in 2021, the Supreme Court introduced new standards for interpreting product-method claims (judging novelty and inventiveness by the product itself, but not limiting the scope of rights to the method elements stated in the specification), and the approach is similar to that of the United States.

Practical example:

• For example, if the patent claims include the term "elastic member," and in the U.S. specification uses a coil spring, the meaning can be interpreted as "a configuration that provides elasticity such as coil springs."
• In Korea, since the 2014 ruling, by interpreting the term "elastic absence" not only but considering the purpose and effect stated in the specification, both may ultimately be similarly limited to "specific elastic bodies (e.g., springs)."
• Therefore, avoid ambiguous terms when filing and provide sufficient definitions or examples of those terms in the specification to facilitate interpretation in both countries.
• In the case of uniformity, for example, if a patented invention includes "wires made of copper" and a competitor uses "aluminum wire," then their function and effectiveness (conductivity) are equivalent, but if aluminum wires are materials commonly used in prior art, their uniformity application is limited. In the United States, the public knowledge defense is recognized that equivalents existing as prior art do not fall under patent rights, and the same applies in Korea.
• Also, if copper is limited to aluminum during the U.S. application process, this is clearly a waiver, so aluminum cannot be included in the same range in the future. These principles apply equally in Korea, so avoiding unnecessary limitations at the filing stage is key to maintaining a broad scope of rights in both countries.

Litigation and dispute resolution, infringement litigation, ITC, licensing

Patent dispute resolution procedures between the United States and South Korea differ significantly due to differences in litigation systems and culture. It explains the key differences in patent infringement litigation, the U.S. ITC system, and licensing negotiation strategies.

Patent infringement litigation procedure:

• United StatesPatent infringement lawsuits are filed in federal court, and jury trials are permitted. In other words, if the defendant requests it, the jury can determine the findings of fact and the amount of damages.
• Through the discovery process, both parties mutually disclose extensive documents, emails, experimental data, source code, and conduct witness examinations in advance, making the pre-litigation process lengthy and costly.
• Trials typically involve focused hearings, where evidence and expert testimony are consolidated before a jury for several weeks before a one-time conclusion.
• KoreaPatent infringement is contested in civil court (district court), and a specialized judge rules without a jury.
• Lawsuits usually hold several hearing sessions at intervals of one to two months, where judges review materials and ask questions.
• There is no discovery system, and if necessary, the court may issue an ex officio order for evidence submission or appoint an expert to conduct technical verification. However, parties cannot require a wide range of internal materials from the opposing party as they do in the United States.
• Therefore, litigation costs are relatively lower and procedures are simplified compared to the United States. In Korea, the time to reach a first-instance verdict is often within 12 years, while in the U.S. it is usually 23 years, though in more complex cases, it can take longer.
• In the United States, the Court of Appeals (CAFC) handles patent appeals exclusively, while in Korea, the second trial is handled by the Patent Court (Daejeon). The Patent Court is composed of judges dedicated to patents, who also review the facts, and the hearing period is about 6~12 months. The final third trial is handled by the Supreme Court of Korea and the U.S. Supreme Court, but limited to legal hearings.

Damages and Injunctions (Injunctions):

• United Statescan be subject to triple damages for damages recognized by the jury, so punitive damages are awarded in cases of intentional infringement.
• KoreaSince 2019, punitive damages of up to three times the amount for intentional infringement have been introduced, but there are still few cases of such recognition.
• Generally, Korean courts calculate damages based on reasonable royalties or the patentee's production capacity, and in the past, amounts tended to be significantly lower than in the United States.
• Meanwhile, in Korea, a business prohibition order (injunction and substantive judgment) is, in principle, granted if infringement is recognized, and the defendant ceases production and sale of the patented product.
• Since the 2006 eBay ruling, the U.S. has not automatically issued injunctions, and patent holders must prove requirements such as irreparable damages.
• As a result, for patent holders (NPEs) who do not conduct business themselves, injunctions are often dismissed and only damages are recognized.
• In Korea, without such distinctions, the position is that patent rights are exclusive rights, so an injunction is naturally required in case of infringement.
• Therefore, the likelihood of preventing defendant products from continuing to enter the market in Korea is higher than in the United States.

Patent invalidation and consolidation of lawsuits:

• United StatesIn this case, the defendant can directly assert a patent invalidity defense in litigation, and the court may hear the case and declare the patent invalid.
• KoreaPatent invalidation falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB), so even if the defendant asserts invalidity in court, they must separately file an invalidation trial with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board in practice.
• If the court finds the patent to be clearly invalid, it may dismiss the lawsuit for abuse of rights or suspend the case to await the tribunal's decision.
• As a result, the U.S. judges infringement and validity in the same trial, whereas Korea's structure is closer to a bifurcation. (However, since the Patent Court effectively combines invalidation trials and infringement lawsuits at the second instance, discussions are sometimes held together in practice.)

Utilizing the ITC system:

• A distinctive patent dispute resolution pathway in the United States is the International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation. The ITC investigates patent infringements caused by imported products (U.S. Law 19 USC §1337) and takes trade remedies, including trade secret infringements.
• Although the ITC procedure is in the form of an administrative appeal, it actually involves discovery of evidence and hearings similar to a trial, and within about 12~18 months, strong remedies such as import bans may be issued.
• The ITC does not grant monetary compensation and only allows for measures to block imports, but its decisions are quick and internationally enforceable, making it a preferred forum for patent holders, especially U.S. companies.
• There is no separate specialized agency in Korea similar to this, and patent holders can request customs clearance blockages, but this is only an administrative measure, and full-scale remedies ultimately depend on Korean court rulings.
• Korean companies often face ITC lawsuits in the U.S., so they adopt strategies to compete on whether domestic industry requirements are met or public interest factors are in place. Since the ITC can only be used by the plaintiff if there is a domestic industry in the United States, a pure NPE must bypass the ITC by transferring or licensing the patent to a U.S. company.
• Although there are no such restrictions in Korea, there is no system like ITC in the first place, so foreign companies must follow standard litigation procedures to enforce patents in Korea.

Licensing Strategy and NPE:

• United StatesPatent licenses, patent pools, and cross-licensing are actively involved here. Especially in the field of Standard Essential Patents (SEP), negotiating FRAND terms is crucial, and if negotiations fail, it can lead to litigation.
• There are also many patent litigation firms in the U.S., known as NPEs (Non-Practicing Entities) or patent trolls, prompting companies to prepare countermeasures.
• KoreaTraditionally, companies have had limited NPE activities because the domestic market was small and it was difficult to expect large profits from patent litigation. However, recently, cases of overseas NPEs filing lawsuits in Korean courts have been increasing.
• In license negotiations, the power of U.S. patents is generally greater than that of Korean patents. This is because, in the United States, the compensation for infringement is large, business suspension orders are possible, and the impact on international markets is significant.
• On the other hand, if only Korean patents are infringed, the defendant company has no impact on overseas sales and the compensation amount is relatively low, making negotiations less tense.
• Therefore, when a Korean company enters into a Cross-License (mutual patent usage agreement) with a U.S. company, the value of its U.S. patent portfolio tends to be valued higher. Korean companies also gain an advantage in bargaining power if they secure key patents in the U.S.

Other differences:

• United StatesThere is a patent marking system, so if a product is sold without displaying the patent number, claims for damages for the period of failure are limited.
• KoreaThere is no such system, and the infringer can claim damages regardless of whether they knew the rights existed.
• Therefore, if a Korean company applies its U.S. patent to a product and sells it, it must indicate the patent number on both the product and the manual to obtain retroactive damages in future infringement lawsuits.
• Additionally, Korean patent law includes criminal penalties, so intentionally infringing on another person's patent can result in criminal penalties such as fines. Although it is not applied very often, it can be used as a pressure factor in negotiations.
• In the U.S., patent infringement is only a civil matter, not a criminal offense, so criminal complaints cannot be filed.
• Finally, in U.S. patent litigation, you usually do not receive reimbursement for attorney fees even if you win on a self-payment basis, but in Korea, the losing party bears a certain amount of litigation costs, if not the full amount. This also makes a difference in litigation risk assessment.

Practical example:

• If a Korean company wants to sanction a competitor for patent infringement in the U.S. market, it can consider both federal court litigation and ITC filing. For example, if Chinese products infringing on your patents are imported in bulk and you want to compete, filing a lawsuit with the U.S. ITC to obtain an import ban may be a quick solution (with an average decision within 15 months). If you want damages at the same time, you can file a lawsuit in the district court and claim damages through a jury verdict.
• In contrast, in Korea, the only option is to notify customs to check imports or file a lawsuit in Korean courts for injunction and damages to await a judgment.
• From a licensing perspective, when a patent infringement lawsuit is filed in the U.S., the extensive costs of discovery and jury unpredictability can lead to significant settlement pressure, so even Korean companies are advised to actively seek negotiated resolutions in U.S. patent litigation.
• If you are sued in Korea, you can calmly contest legal issues and negotiate through invalidation rulings and other means, rather than in the U.S.