[Article / Korean patents] Treatment of extraterritorial matters in Korea (ジョン ウォンギ, Patent, November 2023)
更新日：10月15日
Article information
Article type: Publication review
Display and classification checked: 2026-09-30
Categories: South Korea
Topics: Extraterritorial application / Indirect infringement / International jurisdiction
Published on this website: 2026-09-29
[Article / Korean patents] Treatment of extraterritorial matters in Korea (ジョン ウォンギ, Patent, November 2023)
Korean courts tend to interpret territoriality flexibly, assessing infringement primarily by whether acts of working the patent occur in Korea, regardless of the location of servers or assembly.
1. Servers located abroad
(1) Seoul Central District Court, 2007, 2006 Gahap 73442
A Korean patent (search method), with the server in the United States.
The service was provided in Korean, principally targeted Koreans, and used a domain registered in Korea. Focusing on where infringing acts occurred rather than the server’s location, the court found infringement.
(2) Seoul Central District Court, 2015, 2013 Gahap 5446931
A Korean patent (address-book reorganization method), with servers abroad and all app production and distribution abroad.
The court recognized Korean jurisdiction on the basis that Korean private international law applies the law of the place of infringement. Since the app was ultimately installed and used in Korea, the patented method was used in Korea, constituting direct infringement.
2. Assembly abroad
(1) Supreme Court, 2015, 2014 Da 42110
A Korean patent (bidirectional multi-slide mobile terminal). Semi-finished products were manufactured in Korea, exported, and assembled into finished products abroad.
The court held that “production” in the indirect-infringement provision means domestic production under territoriality, and that no indirect infringement arises unless direct infringement occurs domestically. (This has been criticized.)
(2) Supreme Court, 2019, 2019 Da 222782 / 222799
A Korean patent (medical-thread insertion device). Six component articles were exported to Japanese hospitals, which assembled them and used them in procedures.
The court found direct infringement: if assembly abroad is planned and extremely simple, and the components at the production stage are already in a state capable of realizing the effects of an organically integrated whole combining the patented invention’s elements, the finished product may be deemed produced in Korea.
It also found indirect infringement regardless of whether the finished product was worked domestically or abroad.
Originally posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7510495559250567168/
Related articles and decisions
Updates and corrections
This log starts on 30 September 2026. Display and classification checks are distinct from a review of the legal analysis.
2026-09-30 — Presentation update: added the article type, this change log and a link to consultation options. The existing article text was preserved.
2026-10-01 | Name notation: replaced verified Japanese-script personal names with Roman-letter forms in this English article and its navigation. Legal analysis and original publication date unchanged.
2026-10-01 | Name notation: applied the Roman-letter personal-name spellings supplied by Hideki Takaishi to this English article and its navigation. No change to legal analysis or original publication date.
Intellectual property enquiries
Images from the original AMEBLO article
English translations of the original image text
Original images retained for comparison
Original AMEBLO article
コメント