The procedural dispute
On 13 July 2023, the Korean Supreme Court reversed and remanded case 2021Du63099 to the Seoul High Court. The issue was proof of an agent’s authority, rather than amendment of an invention’s technical disclosure. A patent attorney filed a university applicant’s application on 18 July 2018 without a power of attorney. KIPO issued a correction notice on 1 August requiring a response by 1 October.
A document submitted through another procedure
Within that period, the attorney submitted a general power of attorney when applying to register a general authorisation. The document was dated 17 July 2018 and covered all Korean patent-application procedures; a registration number was assigned on 7 August. The document date, submission date and registration date serve different purposes. Nevertheless, KIPO notified the applicant on 27 February 2019 that the application documents were invalid for failure to correct. The Seoul High Court, in case 2021Nu44090 of 10 December 2021, accepted the ground because no separate correction document or document stating the general-authorisation number had been filed in the application.
Authority and evidence of authority are different
The Supreme Court distinguished granting authority, which did not require a particular form, from proving it in writing under Patent Act Article 7. Evidence responding to a correction order under Article 46 was not subject to rigid formalities. The prescribed correction form served administrative convenience: a submitted document proving the required correction should be treated as a response irrespective of its heading and handled, so far as possible, in the submitter’s interest.
Why the correction was effective here
General authorisation can include proceedings already filed as well as future cases. Here the written power had actually reached KIPO within the correction period and covered the pending application. Submission through general-authorisation registration did not deprive it of evidential effect. Recording the registration number is a convenience that can dispense with repeated powers of attorney; its omission did not erase the proof already supplied. The lower court’s contrary legal interpretation required reversal and remand.
Practical implications and limits
This was a challenge to invalidation of application documents, not revocation of a granted patent or a decision granting the invention a patent. The judgment is no reason to disregard prescribed forms. Check the applicant, agent and scope of authority; preserve receipts and copies proving timely submission; and link each application, correction notice and general-authorisation number. An earlier date on a document is not proof of timely filing. The conclusion cannot simply be extended to cases where no written authority was submitted or the deadline was missed.
The original figure labels and forms are preserved; the text explains the facts and the court’s reasoning.