Recent Developments

On May 15, 2025, Chosun Ilbo published an article highlighting the achievements of Lee & Ko’s Intellectual Property Practice Group in the long-running patent dispute between Coway and ChungHo. According to the article, the Supreme Court’s Third Division upheld the appellate court’s decision, thereby conclusively rejecting ChungHo’s claims of patent infringement and damages against Coway. This final ruling affirms Coway’s victory, with Lee & Ko representing Coway in the appellate court and the Supreme Court. The article explained that the court of first instance initially found Coway liable for patent infringement, ordering the company to pay KRW 10 billion to ChungHo and to destroy the infringing products. However, the appellate court subsequently overturned this decision, ruling in favor of Coway. The appellate court determined that the essence of ChungHo’s patent was the process of making ice directly from pre-cooled water, while Coway’s product made ice using water at various temperatures. The court also noted significant differences between key components of the two products. The article continued, “The Supreme Court also found that the appellate court’s decision was correct,” adding, “Coway represented by Lee & Ko ultimately prevailed in the 11-year patent infringement lawsuit against ChungHo over ice water purifiers.”

Lee & Ko has been named Korea's leading law firm in both Patent Contentious and Trademark Prosecution categories at the 2024 Asia IP Awards, as reported by EDaily on November 22, 2024. According to the article, this marks the first time in Korea that a law firm has earned the distinction of Firm of the Year in two categories at the Asia IP Awards. The article further mentioned that "Lee & Ko's Intellectual Property Group continues to deliver exceptional results in both domestic and international patent litigation and strategic counselling, leveraging their profound technical understanding and robust legal reasoning.”

Kim Un-Ho, a partner of Lee & Ko, has been appointed as the chairman of the Korean Intellectual Property Lawyers’ Association (KIPLA), published by the Law Times on February 14, 2023.  The Law Times said that Mr. Kim as “a lawyer with expertise in the intellectual property law has made a significant contribution to establishing new legal principles in the IP rights area, having actively engaged and advised in diverse landmark cases including the smartphone patent wars between Samsung and Apple, elastomer patent litigation between LG Chem and Mitsui Chemicals, trademark fight between Lacoste and Crocodile which is well-known as ‘Crocodile Battle,’ and unfair competition prevention case for Haeundae Amso Galbi (Korean beef ribs) restaurant.”  Meanwhile, Kwak Jaewoo who is a partner of Lee & Ko was also appointed as the secretary general of KIPLA.

On February 23, 2022, Chosun Biz reported that “the Seoul Central District Court ruled partially in favor of LG Household & Health Care (“LG H&H”) in a lawsuit that LG H&H filed against Tonymoly to seek the prohibition on acts of unfair competition on the part of Tonymoly. The article noted that “the decision establishes the first-ever precedent that the packaging design of a cosmetic product can be protected under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act if such packaging design is found to be an “achievement”, such as brand value, beyond being a simple packaging.”

On January 16, 2022, the Korea Economic Daily published an article in which it introduced Lee & Ko Intellectual Property Group’s recent victory in an appeal before the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (“IPTAB”). 

The article reported that “IPTAB had once rejected trademark registration of Haeundae Amso Galbijip, the trade name of the restaurant.” (As a background information, Haeundae refers to the name of a local district in Korea and Amso means cow.) The article noted that “the restaurant subsequently retained Lee & Ko Intellectual Property Group as its legal counsel, and, last month, Lee & Ko secured a winning decision by filing an appeal against the rejection decision.” 

Lee & Ko Attorney Eunwoo Vera Lee noted that “through a structured presentation of evidence and arguments, we were able to persuade IPTAB that the mark acquired distinctiveness.” She further explained that the decision “offers a meaningful case in which IPTAB recognized the distinctiveness of a mark on the basis of various factors, including, duration of use, level of recognition, and sales revenues, especially when such mark may not be afforded protection on the ground that the mark merely combines the names of a geographical location and a raw ingredient.”