Recent Developments

Lee & Ko’s IP & Technology Practice Group, representing Eugene Tech, successfully invalidated the patents of Japan’s Kokusai Electric (“Kokusai”) in a patent dispute concerning atomic layer deposition (“ALD”) equipment used in semiconductor processing.

In February 2024, Kokusai filed four patent infringement lawsuits against Eugene Tech in the Seoul Central District Court. The technology at issue related to semiconductor process equipment, and Kokusai brought the infringement suits based on patents spanning various fields, including process operation methods and equipment configurations.

Lee & Ko’s IP & Technology Group responded to the infringement suits by asserting non-infringement while safeguarding Eugene Tech’s trade secrets, and at the same time sought to invalidate Kokusai’s patents by filing invalidation actions against all four patents.

With respect to the patent relating to nozzle arrangement among Kokusai’s patents, in December 2024, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (“IPTAB”) held that all of the claims Kokusai had asserted for infringement were invalid. Although Kokusai filed a suit to revoke this decision, the IP High Court rendered a judgment in May 2026 upholding the IPTAB’s determination. In addition, with respect to a patent relating to semiconductor processing, although the IPTAB dismissed Eugene Tech’s petition for an invalidation action, in the correction action that Kokusai filed to amend the scope of its patent claims, it was determined that the invention described in the corrected claims lacked inventive step compared to the prior art, thereby succeeding in effectively neutralizing Kokusai’s patent.

Accordingly, Eugene Tech has effectively neutralized two of Kokusai’s four patents, and by mounting effective invalidity arguments against the remaining two patents as well, it is successfully responding to Kokusai’s infringement claims. As a result, Eugene Tech is now positioned to continue expanding its competitiveness and influence in the market as a promising equipment company in the rapidly advancing semiconductor industry.

Lee & Ko’s IP & Technology Practice Group has been successfully representing Samsung Heavy Industries and another entity in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Canada’s Steelhead LNG against Samsung Heavy Industries and the entity before the Seoul Central District Court in connection with the Canadian FLNG project being carried out by Samsung Heavy Industries and Canada’s Cedar LNG, thereby contributing to the smooth execution of the project.

Cedar FLNG is a nearshore FLNG model that receives natural gas supplied from onshore facilities and is capable of liquefying, storing, and offloading the gas. It is an ultra-large offshore plant, with a hull area 2.5 times the size of a soccer field and a launch weight of approximately 50,000 tons. With respect to the FLNG vessel being constructed by Samsung Heavy Industries, In December 2024, Steelhead filed a patent infringement lawsuit alleging infringement of two patents and seeking, among other relief, an injunction halting construction.

Lee & Ko’s IP & Technology Practice Group defended against the infringement lawsuit by asserting non-infringement, while at the same time filing invalidation actions against Steelhead’s patents. Although Steelhead responded by amending its patent claims, Lee & Ko’s effective invalidity arguments were accepted, and the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (“IPTAB”) held both patents to be invalid in May 2026. The IPTAB found not only that both patents lacked an inventive step compared to the prior art, but also that the amendments made during the prosecution process constituted the addition of new matter, and therefore held that grounds for invalidity existed independent of the lack of inventive step.

As both patents were successfully held invalid by the IPTAB, the likelihood that Steelhead’s patent infringement lawsuit based on those patents will be dismissed has increased significantly. This is highly significant in that Samsung Heavy Industries is now able to carry out this massive project, with a total project cost of USD 4 billion, in a stable manner and without litigation risk.

Lee & Ko’s IP & Technology Practice Group represented VSI, the holder of a patent for an “ionization device,” and reversed a first-instance judgment that had ruled entirely against the client, on appeal in a patent infringement damages lawsuit. Lee & Ko obtained a decision recommending settlement from the IP High Court providing for the payment of damages, thereby securing recognition of the counterparty’s liability for damages, and further successfully enforced the damages claim to recover the client's losses.

The client had filed a damages lawsuit before the Seoul Central District Court, but the court dismissed the claim in its entirety on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired. Lee & Ko then took on the case at the appellate stage before the IP High Court and conducted the litigation.

With respect to the first-instance judgment, which held that the date of the preliminary injunction decision marked the commencement of the short-term statute of limitations, Lee & Ko argued that, given the inherent uncertainty of patent disputes, the injured party cannot be expected to recognize that damage has occurred until the invalidation and scope-of-rights confirmation proceedings have been finally resolved. Lee & Ko further argued that, although a preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit infringement differs in its substance from a damages claim, since both arise from the same underlying legal relationship—namely, the infringement of the patent—the exercise of rights through the preliminary injunction application also interrupts the statute of limitations for the damages claim, and that because this interruption continues for as long as the preliminary injunction remains in effect, the limitations period had not expired by the time the lawsuit was filed. Although the case presented an issue with no precedent, by carefully connecting the reasoning on the material scope of limitations interruption with the progress of the invalidation and scope-of-rights confirmation cases, Lee & Ko secured a determination from the IP High Court that the statute of limitations had not expired. The counterparty accepted the court’s determination and agreed to its recommendation for settlement.

As a result, the settlement decision on legitimate damages was finalized before the IP High Court, bringing the litigation to an early conclusion and successfully securing payment of the damages, so that the client successfully achieved the objectives of the litigation. This case is highly significant in that, in a situation where the client had been at risk of not having its legitimate claim recognized due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and even of having to bear the counterparty’s litigation costs, the client’s losses were recovered by presenting a refined counterargument that a preliminary injunction application also interrupts the statute of limitations for the related damages claim.

Lee & Ko’s IP & Technology Practice Group represented Naver and Naver Financial (the “Plaintiffs”), operators of Naver Pay Real Estate (formerly Naver Real Estate), Korea’s largest real estate information service, in an action seeking an injunction against Darwin Property (the “Defendant”), operator of the real estate listing service Darwin Brokerage, for infringement of database producers’ rights. Lee & Ko secured a favorable judgment at first instance and again on appeal, obtaining a final and conclusive judgment.

In this case, the court rendered a judgment that expressly confirmed that, even for real estate listing information posted on publicly accessible websites, infringement of a database producer’s rights may be established where a competitor collects and uses, without authorization and on a large scale, a platform database that was compiled, verified, classified, and updated through the investment of substantial cost and effort. In particular, the appellate court not only enjoined the Defendant from reproducing, distributing, transmitting, and assigning the data, but also ordered the deletion of the reproduced data, and recognized an increased amount of damages compared to the first instance, thereby making clear the importance and necessity of protecting platform data.

The Defendant argued that it had used only a portion of the Plaintiffs’ database, and that even if there had been reproduction, it amounted to no more than temporary reproduction and therefore did not constitute infringement. In response, Lee & Ko pointed out that the Defendant had, over a long period, repeatedly and systematically reproduced and transmitted a substantial part of the Plaintiffs’ database and had used it in operating its own service to obtain economic benefit, and, by analyzing technical materials such as source code, API request records, and crawling logs, specifically proved the circumstances of the Defendant’s crawling and data use on that basis.

In particular, at the technical hearings held in both the first instance and the appellate proceedings, Lee & Ko used images and videos in its oral arguments to visually explain the crawling structure, the API request method, and the flow of data collection, storage, and posting, arguing the case in a manner that enabled the court to intuitively understand the process by which the Plaintiffs’ data was reflected on the Defendant’s site. This evidentiary strategy, combining legal theory with technology, played a decisive role in leading the court to find that the Defendant’s conduct constituted infringement of database rights rather than mere temporary access.

This judgment is a significant crawling-case ruling that follows in the line of the JobKorea–Saramin (online recruitment and job-search platforms) and Yanolja–Yeogi Eottae (accommodation and travel-booking platforms) cases. It is regarded as a landmark decision that clearly delineates the legal limits on the unauthorized collection and commercial use of publicly available data in platform-data and AI/data-utilization businesses.

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.