If the Consent of Non-Exclusive Licensees Is Replaced with Notice, What Becomes of a Correction Made Without Notice?

The Bill Read and Its Verified Status

This article reads Bill No. 2219280, a bill to partially amend the Patent Act. The proposer is Representative Park Sang-ung et al. (16 members), the date of proposal is June 16, 2026, and the session is shown as the 436th National Assembly (Extraordinary Session). The National Assembly progress displayed on the screen as of the reference date for verification, October 16, 2026, records referral to the competent committee, the Committee on Trade, Industry, Energy, SMEs and Startups, as July 23, 2026. Placement on the agenda, deliberation, and resolution were not shown on the screen.

The portions read are the Reasons for Proposal and Main Contents, the amended provisions, the Supplementary Provisions, and the table comparing new and former provisions in the bill text PDF. This file did not contain the cost estimate. The review report and the minutes of proceedings were not read. The National Assembly Legislative Status list displayed several other bills concerning the same Patent Act. Among them, Bill No. 2205629, shown as promulgated on September 15, 2026, was stated in its Reasons for Proposal to concern reinstatement requirements relating to patent fees under Articles 81-3 and 87, and it was therefore considered not to overlap with the correction provisions addressed in this article. The contents of the remaining bills were not read.

As of the reference date for verification, the current Patent Act was displayed as Act No. 21134 (amended and enforced by another Act on November 11, 2025). This article compared the texts of current Articles 132-3 (3), 133-2 (4), and 136 (8) with the current-provision column of the bill's comparison table and found no differences.

Sources for this section: Public Participation in Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Bill to Partially Amend the Patent Act (No. 2219280) · Bill Text PDF: Bill to Partially Amend the Patent Act (No. 2219280) · Public Participation in Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Bill to Partially Amend the Patent Act (No. 2205629) · Korea Law Information Center, Current Patent Act (Act No. 21134, enforced November 11, 2025)

What the Current Patent Act Provides

Current Article 136 (1) provides that a patentee may request a trial for correction where the patentee reduces the claim, corrects an erroneously stated matter, or clarifies an ambiguously stated matter. Paragraphs (3) through (5) impose limitations, including that a correction must be made within the scope of matters stated in the specification or drawings, and that the claim may not be substantially expanded or altered. Article 136 (10) provides that, when a ruling to the effect that a correction is made becomes final and conclusive, the patent application, the publication of the application, the decision or ruling to grant the patent, and the registration of establishment shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with the corrected specification or drawings. Articles 136 (12) and (13) establish the Procedure for publishing the ruling on correction in the Patent Gazette.

Current Article 136 (8) provides that a patentee may request a trial for correction only upon obtaining the consent of the exclusive licensee, the pledgee, and persons holding a non-exclusive license under Article 100 (4), Article 102 (1), and Article 10 (1) of the Invention Promotion Act. The proviso provides that this shall not apply where a person whose consent is required has requested an invalidation trial. Article 100 (4) provides for a non-exclusive license granted by an exclusive licensee with the consent of the patentee, and Article 102 (1) provides for a non-exclusive license granted by the patentee. Article 10 (1) of the Invention Promotion Act provides for the non-exclusive license held by employers, etc. in service inventions.

Current Article 136 (9) provides that Article 147 (1) and (2), Article 155, and Article 156 shall not apply to a trial for correction. Since Article 155 is the provision governing participation in a trial, the rules on participation by interested persons do not apply to a trial for correction even now. Article 132-3 (3), which provides for a request for correction in the patent cancellation application Procedure, and Article 133-2 (4), which provides for a request for correction in the invalidation trial Procedure, apply mutatis mutandis Article 136 (3) through (6), (8), and (10) through (13); accordingly, the consent requirement applies to a request for correction as well.

Current Article 137 (1) defines as grounds for which an interested person or an examiner may request a trial to invalidate a correction, violations of the items of Article 136 (1) and of paragraphs (3) through (5) thereof. A violation of the consent requirement under paragraph (8) is not on this list of grounds. Article 137 (5) provides that, when a ruling to the effect that a correction is void becomes final and conclusive, the correction shall be deemed never to have been made.

Sources for this section: Korea Law Information Center, Current Patent Act (Act No. 21134, enforced November 11, 2025) · Korea Law Information Center, Current Invention Promotion Act (Act No. 21065, enforced October 1, 2025)

What the Bill Seeks to Change

The bill seeks to replace, in the main text of Article 136 (8), the phrase "the pledgee and persons holding a non-exclusive license under Article 100 (4), Article 102 (1), and Article 10 (1) of the Invention Promotion Act" with "the pledgee." Under the amended wording, a patentee may request a trial for correction upon obtaining only the consent of the exclusive licensee and the pledgee. The three types of non-exclusive licensees lose their right to consent.

The bill seeks to add paragraph (14) to Article 136, providing that, when a patentee requests a trial for correction, the patentee shall notify persons holding the same three types of non-exclusive license of the fact of the request. The bill also seeks to expand the scope of mutatis mutandis application of Article 132-3 (3) and Article 133-2 (4) from up to paragraph (13) to up to paragraph (14), so that the duty to give notice extends to requests for correction in the patent cancellation application Procedure and in the invalidation trial Procedure.

Article 1 of the Supplementary Provisions proposes that this Act enter into force on the day six months after promulgation. Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions provides that, notwithstanding the amended provisions of the main text of Article 136 (8), Article (14) of the same Article, Article 132-3 (3), and Article 133-2 (4), the former provisions shall apply to a trial for correction or a request for correction concerning a patent for which the three types of non-exclusive licensees exist prior to the enforcement of this Act. The Reasons for Proposal cite the observation that, as with standard-essential patents, where there are many non-exclusive licensees it is realistically difficult to obtain the consent of all of them, and explain that the bill seeks to prevent losses to non-exclusive licensees in advance through a duty to give notice.

Sources for this section: Bill Text PDF: Bill to Partially Amend the Patent Act (No. 2219280) · Korea Law Information Center, Current Patent Act (Act No. 21134, enforced November 11, 2025)

What Happens to a Correction Made Without Notice?

Article 136 (14) of the bill imposes on the patentee only the duty to give notice and does not state the effect of failing to give notice. It also does not determine whether the notice is a requirement for the lawfulness of the request for adjudication, whether the trial examiners verify whether notice was given, or whether documents proving the notice must be submitted. The timing of notice is stated as the time of the request, but the method and content are not stated.

A gap may also arise in disputes after a ruling on correction becomes final and conclusive. The grounds for invalidating a correction under current Article 137 (1) are limited to violations of Article 136 (1) and paragraphs (3) through (5) thereof, and the bill does not add a violation of paragraph (14) to this list. Accordingly, a correction made without notice, once final and conclusive, will also be deemed, pursuant to Article 136 (10), to have been registered in accordance with the corrected specification as if from the beginning, and a non-exclusive licensee may find it difficult to locate grounds within the Patent Act for reversing that correction. Even at the time when the consent requirement existed, a defect in consent was not a ground for invalidating a correction, but consent differs from notice in that it was a requirement verified at the stage of the request.

What legal effect is it intended to attach to a trial for correction or a request for correction that fails to observe the duty to give notice?

Sources for this section: Bill Text PDF: Bill to Partially Amend the Patent Act (No. 2219280) · Korea Law Information Center, Current Patent Act (Act No. 21134, enforced November 11, 2025)

What Can a Non-Exclusive Licensee Who Has Been Notified Do in That Procedure?

The Reasons for Proposal explain that the duty to give notice prevents losses to non-exclusive licensees in advance in the alteration of rights resulting from a trial for correction. However, current Article 136 (9) does not apply Article 155, which concerns participation in a trial for correction, and the bill does not change this provision. Even after a non-exclusive licensee learns of the fact of the request, there is no textual avenue for the licensee to participate in the trial for correction and submit an opinion.

Because a correction may include a reduction of the claim, there is room for the relationship between the technology worked by the non-exclusive licensee and the claim after the correction, or the basis for calculating royalties, to change. This article does not address the contractual effects in such a case, which remains a matter of license agreements and civil law, not the Patent Act. Nevertheless, if prevention of loss is cited as the legislative purpose, what means remain available to a non-exclusive licensee after receiving notice should be visible in the text of the provisions. The bill provides none of the submission of opinions, participation, objection, or the addition of grounds for an invalidation trial against a correction.

What Procedure after notice is this purpose of preventing loss to non-exclusive licensees intended to lead to?

Sources for this section: Bill Text PDF: Bill to Partially Amend the Patent Act (No. 2219280) · Korea Law Information Center, Current Patent Act (Act No. 21134, enforced November 11, 2025) · Public Participation in Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Bill to Partially Amend the Patent Act (No. 2219280)

Does the Circumstance of Standard-Essential Patents Justify Eliminating the Consent of All Non-Exclusive Licensees?

The circumstance cited in the Reasons for Proposal is the case where, as with standard-essential patents, there are many non-exclusive licensees. However, Article 136 (8) of the bill eliminates the consent of all three types of non-exclusive licensees without regard to the type of patent or the number of non-exclusive licensees. Even for a patent having only one non-exclusive licensee, consent becomes unnecessary.

Among the three types is also the non-exclusive license held by employers, etc. in service inventions under Article 10 (1) of the Invention Promotion Act. Under the main text of the same paragraph, where employees, etc. obtain a patent for a service invention, employers, etc. hold a non-exclusive license on the patent right therefor, and the proviso provides exceptions in certain cases. Under the bill, in such a case the patentee on the employee side would become able to request a trial for correction without the consent of employers, etc. Whether the circumstance of multiple licensees and the circumstance of employers of service inventions are the same is not explained in the Reasons for Proposal. By contrast, the consent of the exclusive licensee and the pledgee remains unchanged.

What is the reason for defining the scope of the elimination of the consent requirement not as limited to situations of multiple licensees but as extending to all three types of non-exclusive licensees, and is the non-exclusive license of employers of service inventions also explained by the same reason?

Sources for this section: Bill Text PDF: Bill to Partially Amend the Patent Act (No. 2219280) · Korea Law Information Center, Current Patent Act (Act No. 21134, enforced November 11, 2025) · Korea Law Information Center, Current Invention Promotion Act (Act No. 21065, enforced October 1, 2025)

Do the Transitional Measures Bind All Patents Having Existing Licenses to the Former Provisions?

Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions provides that the former provisions shall apply to a trial for correction or a request for correction concerning a patent for which the three types of non-exclusive licensees exist prior to the enforcement of this Act. This sentence may be read in two ways. One reading applies the former provisions to a trial for correction or a request for correction requested prior to enforcement. The other applies the former provisions even to a trial for correction requested after enforcement, where the patent had non-exclusive licensees prior to enforcement.

Read in the second way, the amending effect would not reach patents that already have many non-exclusive licensees, such as the standard-essential patents raised as a problem in the Reasons for Proposal. Nor would the duty to give notice under paragraph (14) apply to such patents. Read in the first way, it becomes an ordinary transitional measure governing the handling of trials pending prior to enforcement. From the wording alone, it is not clear what the phrase "prior to the enforcement of this Act" in the sentence modifies.

Is the reference point in time under Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions the time of requesting the trial for correction, or the time at which the non-exclusive license is created?

Sources for this section: Bill Text PDF: Bill to Partially Amend the Patent Act (No. 2219280)

Commencement and remaining issues

Article 1 of the Supplementary Provisions proposes that this Act enter into force on the day six months after promulgation. This is a proposed condition, not a fixed date, and the date is not calculated from the date of proposal or the date of referral. The remaining issues are the effect of the duty to give notice, the procedural status of non-exclusive licensees, the scope of the abolition of consent, and the reference point in time of the transitional measures.

This article did not read the corresponding provisions of the Utility Model Act and the Design Protection Act, practice materials of the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board, statistics on the status of the working of standard-essential patents, or review reports. Correction systems in foreign countries were not examined either. It neither supports nor opposes the bill, and it does not predict the outcome of its processing. Is it believed that the purpose of protecting the interests of non-exclusive licensees even after consent is replaced with notice can be achieved by notice alone, without effect?

Sources for this section: Bill Text PDF: Bill to Partially Amend the Patent Act (No. 2219280) · Public Participation in Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Bill to Partially Amend the Patent Act (No. 2219280)