Industry Urges National Assembly to Pass Patent Attorney–Client Privilege (ACP)

[Financial News] As global technology competition intensifies, large companies as well as small and venture businesses are calling for the introduction of patent attorney–client privilege (ACP) to protect their core technologies and patent strategies. Amid recent discussions over the introduction of a Korean-style evidence-disclosure system, or K-Discovery, the key issue is the extent to which patent and technical advisory materials exchanged between companies and patent attorneys should be protected.
According to industry sources on the 7th, the Korea Intellectual Property Association (KINPA) and INNOBIZ will jointly hold a policy meeting on the 8th at the National Assembly Members' Office Building in Yeouido, Seoul, under the working title "How Should Small and Venture Businesses Protect Advanced Technologies?" Intellectual property executives from large companies, including Samsung Electronics, and representatives of technology-innovative small and medium-sized businesses are expected to attend. They plan to urge the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly to promptly process the pending amendment to the Patent Attorney Act.
The amendment incorporating patent attorney–client privilege (ACP) would allow confidential communications exchanged between patent attorneys and their clients for the purpose of handling patent attorney work to remain undisclosed within a defined scope.
The current Patent Attorney Act also contains confidentiality provisions. A patent attorney who discloses or misappropriates, without just cause, confidential information learned in the course of work—including inventions, devices, and creations—may face up to five years in prison or a fine of up to 50 million won. The Civil Procedure Act also allows patent attorneys to refuse to testify about secrets learned in the course of their duties.
However, the law does not separately and explicitly establish a right to withhold the confidential communications exchanged between patent attorneys and clients or the documents and materials related to cases they handle.
A major reason industry groups are calling for the legislation is the discussion over introducing a Korean-style evidence-disclosure system, or K-Discovery. Proposals are being considered to improve access to evidence because evidence related to patent infringement is concentrated in the opposing company, making it difficult for the injured party to prove the infringement.
Industry groups argue that safeguards must also be established to protect sensitive advisory materials that companies review with patent attorneys, including patent invalidity analyses, design-around strategies, and dispute-response strategies.
Concerns have also been raised about overseas patent disputes. Before pursuing patent litigation in the United States and other countries, Korean companies sometimes consult domestic patent attorneys about the possibility of infringement and whether a patent is invalid. Industry groups fear that if such advisory materials are not adequately protected, they could become subject to disclosure in overseas discovery proceedings, potentially exposing companies' patent strategies and technical information.
An industry official said, "Patent attorney–client privilege is not a measure to expand patent attorneys' authority. It is a safeguard for protecting clients' technical information and advisory content within the scope of cases that patent attorneys have lawfully accepted." The official added, "It needs to be considered alongside discussions on introducing a Korean-style evidence-disclosure system."
[email protected] Kim Mi-hee Reporter