What inspired you to pursue a career in intellectual property, and what advice would you give to others considering a similar path?

The best part of my career is the pride I feel in safeguarding new technologies resulting from scientists and researchers’ tireless dedication to R&D. It is incredibly rewarding to see these technologies come to life and be used in the real world, knowing that this wouldn’t have been possible without the IP protection that I helped to provide. I encourage anyone with a technical background to consider a career as an IP lawyer if they are interested in exploring and learning about new technologies while engaging in critical thinking.

How would you characterise South Korea’s licensing landscape at present?

Open innovation is actively taking place in the bio and pharma industries. Many Korean research organisations are eager to license their new technologies at the early stages of R&D for further advancement. However, in reality, technology transfer can be challenging. Nonetheless, some Korean companies have successfully transferred their new drug candidates to major multinational pharmaceutical businesses, with some even being approved in the United States and other countries. I am very proud that my team is currently handling patent prosecution matters for one of the most successful pharma licensing cases by a Korean company, involving an approved anti-cancer drug.

As co-leader of the firm’s life sciences group, how do you ensure that each member of your team fulfils their potential and how do you measure the whole team’s success? 

My primary focus is fostering an environment of continuous learning and collaboration. I strive to assign tasks to each team member that align with their strengths – whether they excel in developing litigation strategies or drafting patent specifications with precision. This maximises everyone’s potential. We measure the team’s success through a combination of individual performance metrics, such as client satisfaction, overall team achievements, successful case completions and the growth of our client portfolio. We also regularly review our strategic goals and client feedback to ensure that we stay aligned with our vision of meeting all of their needs and make necessary adjustments for ongoing improvement.

You are an active member the IP community, having served as a director of the Korean Patent Attorneys Association (KPAA). How has this experience contributed to your professional development?

Serving as a director of the KPAA and a council member on the Central Pharmaceutical Affairs Council of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety has significantly enhanced my professional development by broadening my network and deepening my understanding of global IP practices and the life sciences industry. These roles allowed me to engage with industry leaders, stay abreast of emerging trends and contribute to shaping IP policies. The experience also sharpened my leadership skills and provided valuable insights into the regulatory landscape, all of which I apply to better serve my clients and advance my practice. This has been instrumental in refining my strategic thinking and staying at the forefront of the IP field.

What recent decisions or legislative developments are having the biggest impact on IP strategy in South Korea right now in the life sciences sector?

In the life sciences field, a so-called ‘selection invention’ that falls within a broader or generic concept disclosed in the prior art, or a novel crystalline-form invention of a known compound, is often pursued for patent protection as a subsequent patent. Korean courts previously ruled that such inventions only met the inventiveness criteria if they were qualitatively different to or quantitatively improved compared to the prior art (“superior effects”), except for special circumstances. Essentially, superior effects were used as the sole barometer for gauging the inventiveness. However, as of 2022, the Korean Supreme Court has broadened the criteria for assessing inventiveness by requiring the consideration of the “difficulty to conceive” these inventions. Practitioners expect fewer invalidations for selection and crystalline-form inventions due to this relaxed standard.