{"id":3375,"date":"2025-11-26T13:41:58","date_gmt":"2025-11-26T04:41:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sarangip.com\/en\/?p=3375"},"modified":"2026-07-22T15:50:38","modified_gmt":"2026-07-22T06:50:38","slug":"food-design-infringement-damages-korea-court-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sarangip.com\/en\/food-design-infringement-damages-korea-court-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"[Expert Column] How Much is a “Sausage Rice Cake” Design Violation Worth?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

(Patent Court Judgment 2022Na2305, 2312 – Design Infringement Damages)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yesterday, we held the second session of the “IP Practice Forum”<\/strong> in collaboration with Law Firm Yuram. Even after 18 years as a patent attorney, I find there is always something new to learn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this session, we discussed defense strategies in patent and design infringement lawsuits. I presented a specific case regarding a “Sausage Rice Cake” (Kkochi-tteok)<\/strong> design dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As patent attorneys, we are experts in determining “similarity” and “scope of rights.” However, the actual calculation of damages in a courtroom is often the domain of litigators. This forum was a valuable opportunity to dive deep into how courts determine the price tag on infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, I want to share the details of this case. It answers a common question: “Can food be registered as a design? And if infringed, how much money can I actually get?”<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

The Case: The “Sausage Rice Cake” Dispute<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This case involved a popular snack found at Korean highway rest areas: a sausage wrapped in rice cake served on a skewer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  • Plaintiff:<\/strong> The design right holder and distributor.<\/li>
  • Defendants:<\/strong> Two manufacturers (one was a former partner who breached contract) and one online seller.<\/li>
  • The Claim:<\/strong> The Plaintiff sued for design infringement and damages, claiming the Defendants sold copycat products.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
    \"Front-view
    Front-view comparison of the registered skewered rice-cake design and the defendants’ accused product<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n
    <\/div>\n\n\n\n

    Issue 1: Is it Infringement? (Yes)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The Defendants argued that their product was merely a variation of existing “prior art” (publicly known designs) and thus constituted “free use.”<\/p>\n\n\n\nHowever, the Patent Court rejected this argument and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff (Patent Court of Korea, Aug. 29, 2024, Case Nos. 2022Na2305 and 2022Na2312).\n\n\n\n

    Why the Court Found Infringement:<\/strong> The court compared the accused product with prior designs (Designs 2 & 4) and found distinct differences:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"Photo
    Photo collage of skewered sausage rice cake (tteok-kkochi) snacks on plates<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n
    1. Exposed Ends:<\/strong> The accused product had sausage ends protruding from the rice cake, whereas prior designs had the sausage fully or mostly covered.<\/li>
    2. Material:<\/strong> The accused product used rice cake<\/em> (tteok), while a key prior art used bread<\/em>. The court noted that the texture and cooking method of rice cake create a distinct aesthetic difference from bread.<\/li>
    3. Configuration:<\/strong> The accused product featured four wrapped sausages on a skewer, whereas prior designs were simply plated.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      Key Takeaway:<\/strong> Even in food, specific combinations of shape, material (texture), and arrangement can be recognized as a unique, protectable design.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

      <\/div>\n\n\n\n
      \n\n\n\n

      Issue 2: The Million-Dollar Question… Damages<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      This is the part business owners care about most. How much did the court award?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The Plaintiff presented a very specific calculation based on “Marginal Profit.”<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      • Plaintiff’s Calculation:<\/strong>
        • Marginal profit per unit: 209.2 KRW<\/strong> (Sales price minus variable costs).<\/li>
        • Total units sold by Defendants: Approx. 1.15 million units<\/strong>.<\/li>
        • Total Claim: ~143 Million KRW<\/strong> (Calculated based on the Plaintiff’s 50% share ownership during part of the period).<\/li>
        • They also requested punitive damages (3x), claiming malicious intent.<\/em><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
          • \"Korean
            Korean court table calculating material and labor costs and profit margin for the damages assessment<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
          • \"Defendant
            Defendant G sales-quantity table totaling 582,836 units, used to calculate infringement damages<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li>
          • \"Defendant
            Defendant E sales-quantity table totaling 487,532 units, used to calculate infringement damages<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/li><\/ul><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
            <\/div>\n\n\n\n

            The Court’s Decision: 40 Million KRW<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            The court did not accept<\/strong> the Plaintiff’s detailed calculation. Why? The court stated that proving the exact “profit per unit” lost by the Plaintiff was legally difficult with the evidence provided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Instead, the court applied Article 115(6) of the Design Protection Act<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            “If it is extremely difficult to prove the facts necessary to prove the amount of damage… the court may determine a reasonable amount of damage based on the entire intent of the arguments and the result of the examination of evidence.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

            Final Award:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            • Total Damages:<\/strong> 40,000,000 KRW<\/strong> (approx. $30,000 USD)
              • Manufacturers (Jointly): 35 Million KRW<\/li>
              • Seller: 5 Million KRW<\/li><\/ul><\/li>
              • Punitive Damages:<\/strong> Denied<\/strong> (Malicious intent not proven).<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
                <\/div>\n\n\n\n
                \n\n\n\n

                Strategic Insight: Is Registration Worth It?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

                You might think, “They sold over 1 million units, but the damages were only 40 million KRW? Is it worth the legal fees?”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                The Answer is YES.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                1. The Injunction Power:<\/strong> The primary value here is not just the cash award, but the Order to Cease and Desist.<\/strong> The Plaintiff successfully stopped a competitor (a former partner) from flooding the market with copycats. The market share protection is worth far more than the damage award.<\/li>
                2. Food Design is valid:<\/strong> Many people do not know that food can be registered as a design.<\/strong> We have successfully registered designs for “Cup-bap” (Cup rice), styled breads, and even Jelly Cakes.<\/li>
                3. Leverage:<\/strong> Without the registration, the Plaintiff would have had no legal standing to stop the breach of contract and copycat sales effectively.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
                  <\/div>\n\n\n\n

                  Conclusion:<\/strong> In this case, the damages were conservative because the court opted for a discretionary lump sum rather than the specific marginal profit calculation. However, the victory secured the Plaintiff’s market position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  <\/div>\n\n\n\n

                  Rights are always better than no rights.<\/strong> A registered design is the only weapon that works when a partner turns into a competitor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  <\/div>\n\n\n\n
                  \n\n\n\n

                  Sarang IP <\/strong>We provide expert legal counsel on Food Design Patent, IP litigation, and damage estimation strategies.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  \n\n\n\n

                  (Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute specific legal advice. Please consult with a professional attorney regarding your specific case.)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                  Can you patent a sausage rice cake? Yes. A Korean court awarded 40M KRW in damages for food design infringement. Learn how damages are calculated in Korea.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3904,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[60],"tags":[105,98,104,106,70,81],"class_list":["post-3375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-insights","tag-damages-calculation","tag-design-infringement","tag-food-design-patent","tag-kkochi-tteok","tag-korean-ip-law","tag-patent-court-ruling","category-60","description-off"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t