最新消息

Lee & Ko has been advising on production-related contracts and intellectual property clearance—covering copyright law, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and publicity rights—for Netflix series since 2022, contributing to the smooth production and distribution of major works. Representative projects include Squid Game Seasons 2 and 3, Culinary Class Wars, The Trauma Code: Heroes on Call, Karma, and Gyeongseong Creature Seasons 1 and 2.

Lee & Ko reviews a wide range of agreements essential to the production process, including talent and crew contracts, post-production agreements such as VFX, location leases, copyright use consents, and overseas PSAs for foreign shoots. Drawing on extensive experience, Lee & Ko provides practical, production-focused legal advice tailored to the needs of clients.

Lee & Ko’s clearance reviews primarily address issues in copyright, trademark, patent, and unfair competition law, as well as matters involving real names or depictions of real-life events. Depending on the content, Lee & Ko also advises on specialized issues, such as the use of Olympic symbols, youth protection in drama scenes and filming, and personal data consent. This breadth of expertise ensures that producers receive effective, comprehensive guidance across the many legal challenges of content creation.

Lee & Ko further supports clients on Errors & Omissions (E&O) insurance matters, including preparing title reports and conducting IP clearance, to help mitigate the risk of future copyright and personality rights claims. Representative work in this field includes MBC dramas Chief Detective 1958, Doubt, and Oh My Ghost Clients; SBS dramas Revenant, The First Responders, Payback: Money and Power and JTBC’s Reborn Rich.

Through these production-related legal services, Lee & Ko helps Netflix and leading production companies to actively identify and resolve legal issues in advance, safeguard against disputes, and ensure the seamless development and release of content. Lee & Ko continues to play a trusted role across numerous high-profile productions, earning consistent recognition and positive feedback from both Netflix and its production partners.

 

On November 19, 2021, Company C, a manufacturer of equipment for secondary batteries, filed a lawsuit against Wonik PNE Co., Ltd. (the “Company”), which operates in the same industry. The counterparty alleged that the Company was infringing its patent for a “secondary battery pouch folding device” (the “Subject Patent”) and sought both an injunction and KRW 3 billion in damages.

Representing the Company, Lee & Ko argued that the true inventor of the Subject Patent is employee A, and that the Subject Patent amounts to an employee invention that rightfully belongs to the Company. On this basis, Lee & Ko argued that the counterparty’s claim of patent infringement constituted an abuse of patent rights, since the Company was the legitimate patentee. The facts showed that employee A completed the invention while still employed by the Company, but did not disclose it to the Company. Instead, A provided the design drawings to another employee, B. After leaving the Company, B filed for and registered the Subject Patent in his own name, and later transferred it to the counterparty, a company he had established. Lee & Ko persuasively argued that, under these circumstances, the counterparty’s assertion of patent infringement was an abuse of rights. As a result, the Company secured a complete victory at the first instance on October 11, 2024.

Although Company C filed an appeal, Lee & Ko, acting on behalf of the Company, initiated a claim against C seeking the transfer of the Subject Patent registration. The courts recognized that the application for the Subject Patent qualified as an “application filed by an unentitled person” and ruled in favor of the Company. The Company secured a complete victory at both the first instance and on appeal before the IP High Court. On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed C’s appeal, thereby rendering the final the judgment. Following this decision, C withdrew its own appeal, making the case fully resolved.

Lee & Ko’s IP Practice Group conducted a detailed analysis of the technical features of the Subject Patent, the Company’s technical data, as well as related email communications and messenger records. Based on this review, the team successfully proved that the Subject Patent was not B’s personal invention, but rather an employee invention by A, thereby securing a judgment ordering the transfer of the patent rights. Consequently, C’s claims for an injunction and damages for patent infringement were also dismissed. This case highlights Lee & Ko IP’s outstanding litigation capability, demonstrating how thorough technical examination and rigorous legal analysis can lead to a complete victory for the client.
 

Lee & Ko successfully secured the IP High Court’s first-ever judgment holding that posting and selling products falling within the scope of a Korean patent on an overseas e-commerce platform constitutes an “offer for assignment” and therefore amounts to patent infringement in Korea.

The Chinese company Y advertised and listed for sale products covered by a Korean patent owned by Italian sock knitting machine manufacturer Lonati on the Chinese platform Alibaba and on its own website. In doing so, Y provided product information in Korean, displayed prices in Korean won, indicated domestic delivery options, and even offered consultation services — thereby clearly targeting Korean consumers. As a result, Lonati filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Y, seeking an injunction.

The court of first instance emphasized the principle of territoriality and ruled that the posting activity occurred overseas where Alibaba’s servers were located, thereby denying the injunction. In response, Lee & Ko highlighted the need to ensure effective patent protection in the era of global online commerce. Lee & Ko argued convincingly that, consistent with the global trend of relaxing strict territoriality to ensure substantive patent protection, Y’s acts of providing Korean-language product information, displaying prices in Korean won, and specifying domestic delivery options constituted a clear inducement of sales targeting Korean consumers.

The IP High Court accepted these arguments, holding that, irrespective of the server’s physical location, Y’s postings constituted an “offer for assignment” directly targeting Korean consumers. On that basis, it recognized patent infringement and granted the injunction.

This judgment marks the first case in which the Korean courts have acknowledged that, even if a foreign company posts infringing products on an overseas e-commerce platform, such conduct may qualify as an “offer for assignment” under Korean patent law if it is deemed to substantially induce sales to Korean consumers, thereby amounting to patent infringement. By analyzing the substantive nature of cross-border transactions on online platforms and drawing upon foreign case law trends, Lee & Ko has successfully introduced a new interpretative standard for protecting intellectual property rights in connection with postings on overseas platforms, thereby broadening the scope of substantive patent protection in Korea.
 

A Japanese chemical company, M, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against a Korean company, represented by Lee & Ko, asserting three patents. In response, the Korean company initiated invalidation actions against all three of M’s patents. The patents in dispute concerned transparent adhesive sheets used in displays, meaning the case had a direct impact on the supply of materials to display manufacturers. The outcome of the litigation was therefore critical for both parties, as it would determine whether the display materials could continue to be supplied, thereby carrying significant business implications for both companies.

In this case, major law firms represented both parties, and the dispute was fiercely contested. Lee & Ko, representing its client, a Korean company, conducted an extensive search of prior art and filed invalidation actions on the grounds of lack of inventiveness. As a result, Lee & Ko’s arguments were accepted, and both the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (“IPTAB”) and the IP High Court found the patents in dispute to be invalid.

Although the patents concerned adhesive sheets (i.e., product inventions), they included a limitation stating that “the adhesive sheet is used upon exposure to ultraviolet rays”. Lee & Ko argued that this limitation merely indicated that the adhesive sheet contained a component enabling curing, rather than imparting a substantive distinction. In the chemical field, product claims are often limited by properties, physical characteristics, or methods of use in addition to the actual components. However, in many cases, the claimed invention is essentially identical to prior art. By closely analyzing the patent specification and interpreting the claims accordingly, Lee & Ko demonstrated logically and convincingly that the invention did not differ in substance from known technology, leading to the conclusion that it lacked inventiveness.

Both the IPTAB and the IP High Court agreed with Lee & Ko’s arguments and held that the patents were invalid for lack of inventive step. This case is expected to serve as a valuable precedent for evaluating inventiveness in the field of chemical inventions.
 

Lee & Ko represented Shanghai Kaiying Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Kingnet”) in an ICC arbitration concerning a claim for damages arising from the breach of a game copyright licensing agreement brought against Wemade, securing a full award in favor of Kingnet.

The subject of the dispute, the Legend of Mir series, which is co-owned by Wemade and Actoz Soft, is one of the most successful games in both Korea and China. In 2016, Kingnet entered into a licensing agreement for the development and distribution of the game in China. However, immediately following the execution of the agreement, litigation commenced between Wemade and Actoz Soft in China, which effectively prevented Kingnet from exercising its contractual rights.

As a result, Kingnet initiated arbitration proceedings against Wemade, seeking damages for breach of contract. Based on an in-depth analysis of the relevant legal principles under Korean and Chinese copyright law, Lee & Ko successfully established Wemade’s liability for the breach. The ICC Tribunal accepted all of Kingnet’s claims and awarded approximately KRW 70 billion in damages.

The dispute over the Legend of Mir IP has consistently attracted attention in both Korea and China, and this arbitral award received significant media coverage. Lee & Ko acted as sole counsel in this arbitration, and the case stands as a representative example of the firm’s capability and expertise in independently handling large-scale international disputes.
 

Lee & Ko represented Webzen, a leading Korean game company, in a case before the IP High Court (appeal from a decision of the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (“IPTAB”)), where the key issue was whether the trademark application for 'MU' should be refused on the grounds that it was a simple and common mark. On January 23, 2025, the IP High Court ruled in favor of Webzen, finding that the 'MU' trademark had acquired distinctiveness as an indicator of a specific source, and therefore granted full relief to Webzen. The judgment became final and conclusive on February 18, 2025.

'MU' is the mark of Webzen’s flagship online game, which has been in use for more than 23 years since the launch of the game MU in 2001. Building on the success of 'MU', Webzen subsequently released a series of related titles, including the MU Series (such as MU Origin), which have also achieved great success. In this case, Webzen applied in 2021 to register the word mark 'MU' without any stylization. However, the Korean Intellectual Property Office (“KIPO”) issued a decision refusing the application on the grounds that 'MU', as a simple combination of the capital letters “M” and “U” without stylization, constituted a simple and common mark lacking distinctiveness under Article 33(1)(vi) of the Trademark Act. Webzen’s subsequent appeal (appeal against refusal of trademark registration) before IPTAB was likewise dismissed.

Starting from the IP High Court stage, Lee & Ko newly took over the representation of Webzen and filed an appeal seeking to overturn the IPTAB’s refusal decision. In doing so, Lee & Ko presented extensive evidence of Webzen’s use of the ‘MU’ mark over the roughly 23 years between the launch of the MU game and the time of the IPTAB decision, as well as materials showing the concurrent use of MU, MU Series and  , thereby demonstrating that repeated use of the common ‘MU’ element had significantly enhanced the distinctiveness of the mark and persuading the court through a multifaceted presentation. As a result, the IP High Court held that, given Webzen’s continuous use of “MU” and related marks since 2001, the ‘MU’ mark itself had acquired distinctiveness through use by the time of the decision, thereby allowing Webzen to successfully secure registration of the trademark. This case underscores how thorough legal analysis on acquired distinctiveness, combined with the passionate collection and presentation of evidence, resulted in persuasive advocacy and the successful protection of a key trademark, fully demonstrating the expertise and accumulated know-how of Lee & Ko’s Intellectual Property Practice Group.
 

Lee & Ko is acting for LG Chem, Korea’s leading cathode materials manufacturer that succeeded in mass-producing NCM (nickel-cobalt-manganese) cathode materials for the first time in the world, in a lawsuit filed against Ronbay, another representative cathode material manufacturer in China, and Jae Se Energy, Ronbay’s Korean subsidiary.

NCM cathode materials containing nickel, cobalt and manganese as main components, especially the so-called “high-nickel” cathode materials with high nickel content, exhibit a high energy density and thus can be applied to electric vehicles requiring high capacity and high power. On the other hand, such high-nickel cathode materials require state-of-the-art technology for mass production and commercialization due to their low structural and thermal stability.

As far as NCM cathode materials are concerned, Ronbay enjoys the first place in China, and it was pursuing the export of cathode materials to the United States and Europe while gradually increasing the production of high-nickel cathode materials by using the Chungju plant of Jae Sae Energy as one of its main production bases. However, based on conducting comparative analysis of LG Chem’s diverse patent portfolio regarding cathode materials after obtaining samples of high-nickel cathode materials produced by Ronbay and Jae Sea Energy, it was confirmed that their products infringe at least five of LG Chem’s cathode material-related patents 

In response, Lee & Ko sought an injunction on patent infringement with the Seoul Central District Court on behalf of LG Chem. Simultaneously, Lee & Ko filed an application for preservation of evidence to secure evidence that could reveal patent infringement at an early stage. In the process, Lee & Ko successfully carried out procedures to secure evidence of patent infringement entirely under Ronbay’s control, including persuasively explaining the need to preserve evidence and obtaining the court’s evidence preservation order.
 
In addition, Lee & Ko filed an application with the Korea Trade Commission to investigate unfair trade practices in the import and supply of patent-infringing products by Ronbay and Jae Sae Energy, and the Korea Trade Commission has decided to launch an investigation into the matter, and the investigation is currently underway. Lee & Ko is conducting all-out patent infringement disputes representing LG Chem against Ronbay and Jae Sae Energy by actively defending claims of patent invalidity in response to the patent invalidation action filed by Ronbay.

Lee & Ko has prevailed before the court of first instance, representing Naver in a database rights infringement dispute concerning unauthorized crawling of property listing information from ‘Naver Real Estate,’ Korea's leading real estate information service.

Naver and Naver Financial have built the ‘Naver Real Estate’ database through systematic maintenance, management and verification of property listing information, backed by significant human and material investments over an extended period. The two have been providing a high-quality online real estate service to customers by utilizing this database. The counterparty had been engaging in unauthorized crawling of ‘Naver Real Estate’ property listings by way of posting the same on its website ‘Darwin Property’ and proactively exploited it for the purpose of promoting its business. In response, Naver filed a lawsuit in May 2022, invoking database rights infringement under the Copyright Act and unfair competition, specifically misappropriation of achievements.

During the litigation, which lasted over three years, the counterparty claimed that it merely retrieved the property listing information temporarily from ‘Naver Real Estate’ through simple linking rather than copying or transmitting such information and contended that its use amounted to temporary reproduction and was therefore not illegal. Therefore, proving the counterparty’s database rights infringement became the key issue. Lee & Ko, based on its advanced technical understanding of databases, internet linking, crawling and network communication methods, focused on the technical evidence generated on the counterparty’s website during the period it, without authorization, crawled, accessed and copied ‘Naver Real Estate’ property information. Working closely with Naver’s engineers, Lee & Ko secured and submitted evidence of approximately 260,000 instances of unauthorized crawling-related copying and transmission to the court. Most importantly, Lee & Ko convinced the court by establishing through technical evidence that errors indicated in ‘Naver Real Estate’ were identically showed up on ‘Darwin Property,’ and that when certain information was deleted from ‘Naver Real Estate,’ such information was subsequently deleted from ‘Darwin Property’ as well after a certain period. This remarkable outcome illustrates the expertise and know-how accumulated by Lee & Ko’s Intellectual Property Group, which comprises numerous science and technology experts who have handled many similar cases.

In particular, Lee & Ko successfully fended off the typical “power abuse framing” strategy attempted by copycat latecomers in unauthorized crawling cases - namely, the claim that the market leader is “preventing market entry by latecomers.” Lee & Ko proved the infringement through objective evidence while convincingly explaining the illegality of the infringing acts from a legal perspective, ultimately succeeding in protecting the rights of Naver as the database creator.

In 2021, Versum Materials Korea (“Versum”) filed a patent invalidation action against Tri Chemical Laboratories (“Tri Chemical”) regarding a thin film formation material patent. Lee & Ko, representing Tri Chemical, the patentee, successfully defended the patent’s validity at the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (“IPTAB”) in July 2023. Although Versum subsequently filed an appeal with the IP High Court to revoke this decision, the IP High Court also upheld the patent’s validity on August 22, 2024 (prevailing on all claims), and this ruling was rendered final and conclusive on September 14, 2024.

The patent at issue directs to Cp hafnium compounds used as thin film formation materials, which are representative high-dielectric materials used to form insulating films at the ends of semiconductor DRAM capacitors or metal gates. This patent is considered so significant in the industry that it is valued at over KRW 1 trillion.

Versum argued that the patent lacked inventiveness as the patented compound was structurally similar to compounds disclosed in prior art references and could be easily derived. In response, Lee & Ko not only successfully articulated the legal principle that in the chemical field, even if compounds show structural similarities, the patent’s inventiveness cannot be readily denied if there are unpredictable and significant differences in effects. Lee & Ko also clearly demonstrated these differences by conducting and presenting comprehensive comparative experiments between the patented compound and prior art compounds.

As a result, both the IPTAB and the Patent Court determined that the patent could not be invalidated due to its unpredictable and significant effects compared to prior art compounds, successfully defending the patentee’s rights. The ruling serves as an important precedent regarding the finding of inventiveness in compound-related inventions.

This case attests to Lee & Ko’s Intellectual Property Group’s superb capabilities and expertise, as it successfully protected an enormously crucial patent from invalidation attempts through more than three years of persuasive arguments in hearings, grounded in  thorough technical review and legal analysis.