The “Reverse” Infringement Nightmare
CEO Baek of Brand B, a rising star in the beauty industry, had been successfully selling a self-care artificial eyelash kit for over two years. The product was a hit in Korea and had even successfully expanded into the Chinese market.
Then, a crisis emerged. A competitor, Company Q, launched a copycat product and began marketing it with the tag “Utility Model Under Examination.”
This is a terrifying scenario for any original creator. If Company Q successfully registered their utility model, they could legally accuse Brand B—the original inventor—of patent infringement. The pioneer would become the pirate. Brand B needed to stop this registration immediately.
The Obstacle: The “Unpublished” Blind Spot
To stop a patent application, you must prove it lacks novelty. To do that, you need to know exactly what the claims are.
The problem? Company Q’s application in Korea was still in the “Unpublished” phase. By law, applications are kept confidential for up to 18 months unless early publication is requested. We knew an attack was coming, but we were fighting in the dark, unable to see the specific technical claims Q was trying to register.
The Breakthrough: Cross-Border Intelligence
While many firms might have waited for the publication (which could be too late), Sarang IP went on the offensive.
We hypothesized that if Q was aggressive, they might have filed abroad simultaneously. Our global IP search team scoured international databases and found the smoking gun: Company Q had filed a parallel patent application in China based on their Korean priority date.
Unlike the Korean file, the Chinese application had already been published.
We immediately translated and analyzed the Chinese document. As expected, it revealed the exact technical details Q was trying to secure in Korea. The “invisible” enemy was now visible.
The Strike: Information Submission (Third-Party Observation)
Armed with this intelligence, we executed a preemptive strike.
We filed a detailed “Information Submission” (Third-Party Observation) to the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). Even before a patent is published, third parties can submit evidence to the examiner to show why an application should be rejected.
Our submission proved that Q’s “invention” lacked both Novelty and Inventive Step (Violation of Patent Act Article 29). We provided irrefutable evidence:
- Prior Art: We cited technical documents from 2006 and 2012 that already disclosed the technology.
- Public Use: We proved the technology was already in the public domain via Brand B’s own sales.
The Victory: Double Rejection
The strategy was a total success. The KIPO examiner cited our submitted evidence as the primary reason for issuing a Final Rejection to Company Q’s utility model application.
But we didn’t stop there. We used the same evidence to file an observation with the Chinese patent office, successfully blocking their registration in China as well.
CEO Baek and Brand B were able to secure their best-selling product against a malicious takeover attempt.
Conclusion
In the global economy, IP disputes are rarely contained within one border. A competitor’s footprint in one country can reveal their strategy in another.
This case proves that even “secret” unpublished applications can be defeated with the right intelligence and aggressive legal maneuvering. At Sarang IP, we don’t just wait for the law to take its course; we actively hunt for the evidence needed to protect your business.
