[The Editors' Verdict] Venture Industry's 20-Year Wish... It's Not Regulation or Money, But This

Venture Companies Hold 30% of National IP Rights, but Face Limits in Patent Disputes
Patent Attorney Act Amendment Stuck in Judiciary Committee for 20 Years
Advanced Industries and Scientific Community Support Change...
Need to Reflect Social Trends and Legal Consumers' Voices

Kyung-ho Lee, Director of Bio, Medical Device, and Venture Division

The general election is six months away next year. Once the last regular session of the 21st National Assembly ends, the Assembly will effectively enter election mode. There are many bills dormant in the National Assembly, but among them is a 20-year long-awaited bill for ventures and startups. Not only these, but there are also bills desired by national advanced strategic industries such as semiconductors, displays, batteries, and bio.

It is the amendment to the Patent Attorney Act that would allow patent attorneys to act as representatives alongside lawyers in civil lawsuits. Under the current law, patent attorneys can act as litigation representatives in matters related to patents, utility models, designs, or trademarks. However, this is only recognized for cancellation lawsuits (administrative lawsuits) such as invalidation of registration or confirmation of the scope of rights. In civil disputes (civil lawsuits) such as damages or transfer of rights, only lawyers can act as litigation representatives.

The amendment to allow patent attorneys to also represent clients was first introduced in the 17th National Assembly in 2006 and has been proposed every time up to the previous 20th National Assembly but has never passed the plenary session. In the 21st National Assembly, after extensive discussions in the Industry, Trade, and Small and Medium Venture Business Committee during the first half of the session, a revised bill was forwarded to the Judiciary Committee. However, since being referred to the Judiciary Committee subcommittee last May, it has been at a standstill. The Ministry of Justice and lawyer organizations clearly oppose it. Their position is that litigation representation can only be performed by legal professionals who possess legal ethics, i.e., lawyers, and that there is a risk of unconstitutionality.

This is not about occupational conflicts or turf wars. Let us look for the key to the solution from the legal consumers, the companies, especially venture companies. According to statistics from the Korea Venture Business Association, venture companies hold 30% of the country's total intellectual property (IP). This is incomparable to general small and medium enterprises (0.7%), medium-sized enterprises (1.0%), and large corporations (1.7%). Out of about 600,000 cases, 180,000 are venture company IPs. The core weapon of venture companies is patents based on innovative ideas and technology. Patents are like life to venture companies. Companies whose patents are infringed must fight desperately to protect their patents.

A representative from the Korea Venture Business Association says, "Nine out of ten companies involved in patent disputes are small and medium ventures, and most of them give up on litigation." The reasons include the heavy burden of litigation costs and duration, difficulty in finding suitable representatives for dispute response, and the inability to appoint patent attorneys who usually assist them as litigation representatives. Ultimately, they have to rely on law firms, but they do not know many, and well-known law firms charge considerable fees. How about overseas? In the United States, Japan, China, the European Union (EU), and the United Kingdom, companies appoint patent attorneys in patent infringement lawsuits.

We are in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and artificial intelligence (AI), and national core and advanced technologies are directly linked to national security beyond individual companies. The reason why scientists, technologists, and related organizations support the amendment to the Patent Attorney Act is also because it is necessary for the advancement of science and technology. This is not a newly proposed bill or one just referred to a standing committee. It is a bill that has passed through countless pros and cons and moved from the standing committee to the Judiciary Committee since 20 years ago, before smartphones even existed. The Judiciary Committee in the second half of the 21st National Assembly also postponed it, saying "more multifaceted and in-depth discussions are needed," returning it to square one in the 22nd National Assembly, repeating the past 20 years over four years. Lee Kyung-ho, Head of Bio SME Venture Department

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.