# Withdrawing a patent application during an appeal against refusal Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10510 explains why withdrawing an application removed the legal interest in challenging the decision upholding its refusal. Source: https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892 HOME / NEWS & INSIGHTS NEWS & INSIGHTS Withdrawing a patent application during an appeal against refusal Korean Patent Court case 2025Heo10510 explains why withdrawing an application removed the legal interest in challenging the decision upholding its refusal. Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.29 published IPLEX 4 min read From examination to an action before the Patent Court The applicant filed Korean patent application No. 10-2022-0105642 on 23 August 2022. On 11 July 2023, the examiner refused it under Article 29(2) of the Korean Patent Act, which concerns inventive step: whether the invention could readily have been made from the prior art. The applicant amended the specification and other application documents on 10 November 2023. The examiner nevertheless issued another refusal on 27 December 2023. The applicant then pursued the available review procedure. An appeal against the refusal was filed with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board on 16 April 2024. The Board dismissed that appeal on 30 June 2025 in case 2024Won824. On 28 August 2025, the applicant brought an action before the Patent Court seeking cancellation of the Board’s decision. The application was withdrawn while the action was pending The applicant withdrew the patent application on 1 July 2026. The court established this from the evidence and the proceedings as a whole. Oral proceedings closed on 9 July 2026, and judgment was delivered on 23 July 2026 in case 2025Heo10510. The withdrawal therefore occurred before the court concluded its consideration of the action. The withdrawn instrument was the patent application. Describing this as a withdrawal of the lawsuit would misstate the case. The court still had to decide whether a legal need remained to hear the action for cancellation. A continuing legal interest in cancellation An interest in bringing an action concerns the need for judicial protection through a judgment resolving the dispute. The existence of a dispute when proceedings began does not make later developments irrelevant. The court held that, following its withdrawal, the application was treated as never having existed. The applicant consequently had no remaining legal interest in cancelling the Board’s decision upholding the refusal of that application. The requested relief was cancellation of the adverse Board decision. Once the underlying application had been withdrawn, the court found no continuing legal need to determine that claim. An inadmissible action, without a ruling on inventive step The court dismissed the action as inadmissible and ordered the plaintiff to bear the litigation costs. This was a procedural disposition based on the loss of the legal interest required to maintain the action. The Board had dismissed the administrative appeal, whereas the court disposed of the subsequent action without reaching the merits. These are distinct outcomes at different stages. The judgment should therefore not be presented as a finding by the court that the invention lacked inventive step or that the examiner’s substantive assessment was correct. Its reasoning concerned the effect of withdrawing the application during litigation. Coordinating application management and litigation A decision about maintaining an application should be considered alongside the plan for challenging its refusal. Before withdrawal, identify the relevant refusal, the Board decision and any pending court proceedings, and compare the intended withdrawal with the relief being pursued. If application management and litigation are handled by different people, they should share the application’s status and the progress of the challenge. Treating these decisions separately can obscure their procedural consequences. Instructions must also identify what is to be withdrawn. The application number and the particular procedure should accompany the document name, so that withdrawing the application is not confused with withdrawing the court action. The application’s status underpins the remedy sought The decisive fact in this case was the applicant’s withdrawal of the application while the action for cancellation was pending. The court held that this removed the interest in obtaining cancellation and made the action inadmissible. The practical lesson extends to case management: preparing arguments and evidence is only part of conducting a challenge to refusal. The status of the application to which those arguments relate must also be kept in view. Application decisions and the intended outcome of litigation should therefore be reviewed together. This judgment illustrates that relationship through a specific Korean case; it does not decide the invention’s substantive patentability. The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the source material. 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: Patents & utility models ↗ Related service: IP disputes & appeals ↗ ON THIS PAGE From examination to an action before the Patent Court The application was withdrawn while the action was pending A continuing legal interest in cancellation An inadmissible action, without a ruling on inventive step Coordinating application management and litigation The application’s status underpins the remedy sought TALK TO IPLEX Discuss your IP questions We consider your technology and business needs together. ↗ Contact us Newer METAVIEW and metaVu: why pronunciation mattered in Korea ↗ Older SwiLA: organizing memory around context ↗ Related insights Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.28 Saxophone pad repairs: process wording and inventive step A Korean judgment compares a product-by-process claim with a repair manual and video, focusing on the finished pad structure. ↗ Read article Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.27 Humidity ranges and inventive step in semiconductor processing A Korean patent judgment examines metal-containing resists, numerical humidity limits and the technical reasons for combining prior art. ↗ Read article Patents & Utility Models 2026.10.26 Changing a claim dependency does not necessarily narrow its scope A Korean patent decision examines lost inherited limitations, amendment restrictions on re-examination and inventive step in anisotropic conductive bonding. ↗ Read article - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/category/patent - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/ko/blog/brunch-case-1892 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/patent#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/ip-solutions/disputes#related-insights - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892#article-1892-en-0 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892#article-1892-en-1 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892#article-1892-en-2 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892#article-1892-en-3 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892#article-1892-en-4 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1892#article-1892-en-5 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/contact - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1893 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/swila-switching-linear-attention - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1886 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1886 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1882 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1882 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1875 - https://www.iplexlaw.co.kr/en/blog/brunch-case-1875