# Invalidating a Korean design: can a final mediation order be reopened? Case 2025JaeNa10010 examines how a criminal acquittal following design invalidation can justify reopening a final civil mediation record. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1793 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Invalidating a Korean design: can a final mediation order be reopened? Case 2025JaeNa10010 examines how a criminal acquittal following design invalidation can justify reopening a final civil mediation record. Designs 2026.10.03 published IPLEX 6 min read Two designs and an infringement dispute The Korean Patent Court’s judgment of 27 November 2025, case 2025JaeNa10010, concerns toe-correction devices. The claimant held an exclusive licence under design No. 30-0785961 and jointly owned design No. 30-0885468 with a participant in the mediation. The defendant made and sold products based on its own registered design, No. 30-0923283. The claimant sought to prohibit manufacture and sales, destroy products and recover damages for infringement of its rights in the first two designs. The Seoul Central District Court allowed the claims on 25 June 2021 in case 2019GaHap564832. On appeal, the Patent Court issued a decision in lieu of mediation on 20 March 2023, requiring cessation, destruction and monetary payments. It became final on 12 April 2023. Under Korean procedure, such a final decision has the effect of a judicial settlement; a party cannot simply withdraw from it. The timing of invalidation mattered Design 1 was invalidated for similarity to a prior design, and the invalidation became final on 19 January 2023, before the mediation decision. Design 2 was invalidated because it could easily have been created by combining earlier designs; that decision became final on 23 April 2024, after mediation. The case therefore did not involve two rights disappearing simultaneously after settlement. A criminal conviction concerning infringement of Design 2 had also become final. After that design was invalidated, criminal retrial proceedings resulted in a final acquittal. The basis was that the design right was deemed never to have existed, so manufacture and sale of the relevant products could not constitute infringement of that right. Reopening required a link to the earlier decision The defendant sought the exceptional Korean procedure for reopening a final record, applying Article 451(1)(8) through Article 461 of the Civil Procedure Act. The issue was whether a judgment underlying the earlier factual findings had subsequently changed. This is not an additional ordinary appeal. Because an unreasoned decision in lieu of mediation may reflect numerous considerations, the grounds for reopening must be assessed more strictly than for an ordinary judgment. The court found the necessary connection. Design 1 was already invalid, and the defendant had notified the court of that result and the challenge to Design 2. Earlier criminal decisions were in the civil record, even though the particular later final conviction had not formally been submitted before mediation. Their substance had informed the factual assessment. Equal payments to the claimant and the co-owner of Design 2 also supported the conclusion that infringement of that remaining right underpinned the mediation outcome. What was set aside, and what remained outside the case The later acquittal changed that foundation and could affect the mediation decision. The Patent Court reopened and cancelled only the part of the mediation record between the claimant company and the defendant, set aside the first-instance judgment and dismissed the company’s claims. Under Article 121(3) of the Design Protection Act, final invalidation meant both rights were deemed never to have existed; the claims based on Design 1’s exclusive licence and Design 2’s ownership therefore failed. The defendant had sued only the claimant company. The judgment did not cancel the separate part involving the mediation participant, nor did it resolve the dispute by finding the product shapes dissimilar. In practice, assess the validity of each right separately from the continuing force of the settlement, map the dates right by right, and connect invalidation, civil and criminal records. A favourable result in another proceeding is not enough: identify the premise it changes and the precise parties and relief for which reopening is sought. The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the facts and the court’s reasoning. Read the Korean source This article reflects the information available when it was published. Contact us to discuss your circumstances. Discuss this topic ↗ All articles Related service: Designs & trade marks ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗ ON THIS PAGE Two designs and an infringement dispute The timing of invalidation mattered Reopening required a link to the earlier decision What was set aside, and what remained outside the case TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer Employee-invention compensation in Korea: when does the limitation period start? ↗ Older Remaking branded bags in Korea: private use and trade mark infringement ↗ Related insights Designs 2026.10.15 Dress designs: overall appearance and the limits of easy creation Korean Patent Court case 2024Heo13978 distinguishes design similarity from easy creation by combining earlier clothing designs. ↗ Read article Designs 2026.10.14 A different-looking tile design can still be refused Korean Patent Court case 2024Heo71 separates overall visual impression from whether a design is easy to create. ↗ Read article Designs 2026.10.13 Design drawings, adjustable products and the scope of protection Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10374 explains why an adjustable funeral-garment ornament did not cover every possible configuration. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/design - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/brunch-case-1793 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/trademark#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1793#case-1793-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1793#case-1793-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1793#case-1793-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1793#case-1793-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1794 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1792 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1833 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1833 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1830 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1830 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1826 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1826