On August 22, 2025, President Lee Jae-myung announced his intention to elevate the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO / 특허청) into a “지식재산처” (Intellectual Property Office/Administration) and to revitalize the technology transaction (기술거래) market. Subsequently, by September 7, 2025, the government introduced a government reorganization plan that includes this elevation under the Office of the Prime Minister, positioning the new 지식재산처 to act as a policy control tower for intellectual property policy: creation, protection, utilization, and commercialization. This move, while welcomed by industry experts, was also seen as a call to urgent action. Without deeper structural reform, the impact may be limited. The need of the hour is to establish an actual IP "control tower" that can coordinate policy, strengthen enforcement, and enable growth through innovation.
Why This Matters
Fragmented Governance Weakens IP Value
At present, Korea's IP responsibilities are divided among 13 different ministries. The National Intellectual Property Committee, established under the 2011 IP Basic Act, The Framework Act on Intellectual Property (2011), created Korea's Presidential Council on Intellectual Property, chaired by the Prime Minister and a private expert. The Council coordinates and deliberates on significant national IP policies and plans, evaluates their implementation, and is supported by a dedicated Office of IP Strategy and Planning as its secretariat. While it does not wield broad regulatory powers, government agencies are legally required to notify the Council of major IP initiatives and consider its opinions, giving it more than a purely advisory role. This fragmentation prevents Korea from executing a unified IP strategy.
Other major economies already have centralized IP structures. The United States relies on the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) and an IP Advisory Committee. Japan has an Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters. China runs a National IP Strategy Joint Conference.
Korea ranks as the world's 4th largest filer of patents with 289,749 applications in 2023, an increase of 6.7% year on year (WIPO). Despite this, commercialization outcomes remain limited.
Enforcement Gap and Licensing Void
A central weakness lies in enforcement. While Korean patents are recognized globally for their quality, infringement cases rarely result in significant damages. Only in October 2023 did the Busan District Court grant punitive damages in a patent case involving a cooking device seal, applying amendments first introduced in 2019. This was hailed as a landmark decision precisely because such rulings remain rare.
Recognizing this gap, the Korean National Assembly passed further amendments in January 2024 to strengthen penalties for infringement and expand punitive damages. These steps show that the system is evolving, but innovators and investors still face uncertainty about whether infringement will be punished in practice. This enforcement gap explains why domestic licensing activity is minimal, in stark contrast to the thriving technology licensing markets in the United States and Europe.
From Copycat Economy to Innovation Economy
For decades, Korea succeeded with a fast-follower model that adapted and refined technologies developed abroad. One illustration is the country’s reliance on utility models (UMs), which required a lower standard of novelty than patents. A 2024 study found that these UMs acted as a “learning device” that helped firms build technological capacity during Korea’s industrial catch-up phase. While this strategy was effective for rapid growth, it also reflects the traits of a “copycat economy,” where incremental adaptation dominates over original invention.
That approach helped accelerate industrial growth, but it cannot sustain competitiveness in today’s environment of technology nationalism and IP-led competition. To lead rather than follow, Korea must strengthen enforcement and governance so that original innovation becomes a secure and valuable investment.
The Path Forward
- Reform the IP Basic Act so that the National IP Committee becomes a central administrative agency with absolute authority.
- Strengthen enforcement by empowering courts to award damages that reflect the actual cost of infringement.
- Encourage domestic technology transfer by creating standard licensing frameworks that reduce transaction costs.
- Align with global practices from the United States, Europe, Japan, and China to ensure comparability and credibility.
Reform would not only increase the attractiveness of Korean patents, open new channels for licensing, and provide innovators with the confidence that their IP can be defended and monetized, but also pave the way for a future where Korea is recognized for its original innovation.
Turning Policy into Growth
At Evalueserve IP and R&D, we view governance reform as a foundation. Stronger laws and centralized authority create an environment where IP can thrive, but organizations must act to realize the benefits.
These steps require systematic approaches:
- Auditing IP portfolios to uncover assets with untapped value.
- Optimizing portfolios so that protection aligns with commercialization opportunities.
- Applying competitive intelligence to benchmark licensing practices and enforcement outcomes in key markets.
- Planning for multiple scenarios to anticipate how policy reforms may affect transactions and litigation strategies.
Our experience demonstrates that when an IP strategy is integrated with business decision-making, intangible assets are converted into measurable growth outcomes.
Conclusion
Korea's proposed governance reform underscores a fundamental point: IP must be treated as a strategic resource rather than a procedural requirement. For innovators and IP professionals, the reform debate signals both risk and possibility.
The risk is that patents remain abundant but underutilized if enforcement and coordination are not addressed. With reform and strategy, Korea can shift from being an economy recognized for its ability to imitate to one recognized for its ability to lead through original innovation.
Policymakers may define the framework, but it is up to businesses, innovators, and IP professionals to translate that framework into economic advantage. This empowerment is a key aspect of the IP governance reform.
