Coupang Case: Responding to a Patent Infringement Sales Suspension

In this case, IPLEX IP Law Firm prepared a patent attorney's opinion and supplementary explanation regarding a product that was suspended from sales due to a patent infringement report in Coupang, and is a non-identifying case that led to the lifting of the sales suspension. All identifiable information, such as the party name, rights number, product number, seller name, and brand name, has not been disclosed.

The client was selling safety vests for riders at Coupang and was notified of product sales suspension due to a patent infringement report. The content of the report was that it was an infringement within the same or similar scope of a patent related to a specific reflective vest. The seller first submitted a written explanation, but the platform informed him that more specific data was needed to confirm that there was no infringement.

The explanation for reporting patent infringement is different from a general complaint email. It must be legally explained that the product being sold does not fall within the scope of the patent claims, and the structure of the actual product must be matched with images and tables. Additionally, the platform review process requires both speed and accuracy as documents for resumption of sales must be submitted within a limited time.

The asserted patent focused on a particular rear storage and deployment mechanism, rather than every vest containing reflective fabric. The issue was whether the product included a lower rear compartment, a reflective rear panel that could be withdrawn from it, and a mechanism connecting or disconnecting that panel at the shoulder.

Even if the sold product is not identical to the claim text, if it implements substantially the same function, action, or effect, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents may be an issue. However, the sold product is a fixed structure and does not implement the effect of expanding or storing the reflective area on the back as needed.

Before filing, we have confirmed that similar structures have already been disclosed, such as overseas sales pages and user reviews. Accordingly, we reviewed whether the sold product falls within a freely implementable technology area and whether the exercise of the rights of the reported patent could be restricted due to abuse of rights.

IPLEX first confirmed the actual structure through front and back images of the products being sold. Next, we decomposed the claims of the reported patent into their components and reviewed whether each component corresponded to a sold product. The decision was made based on whether the essential composition of the claim corresponds to the actual structure, rather than simply the product name, category, or appearance.

The review identified missing claim elements: no separate lower rear compartment, no reflective panel retractable into that compartment, and no mechanism connecting or disconnecting one end of that panel at the shoulder.

The patent attorney’s opinion addressed the absence of literal infringement, the absence of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and possible defenses based on freely usable prior-art technology and abuse of rights. The accompanying submission to Coupang organized the arguments and evidence so that platform reviewers could readily understand the key issues.

After submitting IPLEX's patent attorney's opinion and supplementary explanation, the suspension of sales of the product was finally lifted. This case shows that both technical analysis and platform submission format are important in responding to Coupang intellectual property infringement reports.

A registered patent does not cover every similar product beyond the scope of its claims. Missing claim elements, material differences relevant to equivalence, or applicable prior-art defenses may support a request to lift a sales suspension.

IPLEX IP Law Firm reports intellectual property rights infringements and responds to sales suspensions that occur in Coupang, Naver, Smart Store, open markets, and company malls. The main scope of work is as follows:

If you receive a notice of suspension of sales, the most important thing to avoid is deleting the product without confirming the reason or sending only a short complaint. Reports of intellectual property infringement can be linked to violation history and account risk, so initial response should be organized with a focus on the scope of rights.

First review the asserted rights and the available grounds for a response. Deleting a listing without addressing the complaint may not remove the platform's violation record, so check the scope of rights and preserve the evidence before taking action.

That's not true. Patent infringement is determined based on the elements of the claims. If the product sold does not have essential components or has different effects, infringement may not be established.

In many cases it is possible. By analyzing the reason for rejection, supplementing the insufficient data, and submitting a structured explanation along with a patent attorney's opinion, you can reconsider the possibility of resuming sales.

Unlike general judgments or lawsuits, platform sales suspension cases have very strong time limits. Therefore, rather than laying out all the legal principles from the beginning, we should first summarize the key issues necessary to determine whether a platform can resume sales. IPLEX designs the document structure for each case according to the type of rights and characteristics of the product being sold.

In this case, the documents for submission to the platform largely consisted of four parts. First, a non-infringement statement that the product sold does not meet the core elements of the declared patent. Second, the review is that it is difficult to recognize infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because the structure and effect are different. Third, we summarized the possibility of prior-art defense based on public data before application. Fourth, it was explained that the exercise of rights may be restricted due to relationships with prior art.

Additionally, rather than simply attaching images of products for sale, we processed them into explanatory images showing problematic areas. Because a lot of data is submitted during platform review, it is important to organize images and tables so that the person in charge can quickly understand the key points.

Consultation is possible even if you do not have all the materials ready. However, if you have a sales discontinuation email and actual product images, you can quickly determine the type of rights and direction of initial response. In particular, patent reporting requires claim analysis, so the review speed is accelerated if the patent number or registration notice is included.

A prompt review is required if a product is suspended from Coupang due to an intellectual property infringement report, if the first explanation is rejected, if the right holder submits an additional counter-argument, if multiple products are reported at the same time with the same rights, if Rocket Gross storage fees continue to accrue, if there is a history of repeat violations, or if there is a risk of account suspension.

In particular, it is often difficult for sellers to decide on their own when reporting patent and design rights. This is because whether products fall within the scope of rights is more important than whether they look similar, and judging the scope of rights requires specialized legal principles and technical preparation.