For wilful patent infringement, the Court may increase the amount of damages by up to three times the amount recognized as damages for violations occurring after July 9, 2019 and before August 21, 2024 under Article 128, Paragraph 8 of the former Korean Patent Act (KPA), and by up to five times the amount of actual damages for violations occurring after August 21, 2024 under Article 128, Paragraph 8 of the current KPA.

There have been a few patent infringement cases awarding punitive damages since the revision of the KPA in 2019. The Busan District Court first awarded punitive damages of 0.5 times the amount of actual damages based on a finding of willful infringement (Case No. 2023GaHap42160 rendered on October 4, 2023). On appeal of this decision, the Intellectual Property Court awarded punitive damages of two (2) times the amount of actual damages (Case No. 2023Na11276 rendered on October 31, 2024).

On October 23, 2025, the IP Court issued a decision (Case No. 2022Na2183) holding that it is reasonable for the defendant to compensate the plaintiff three (3) times the amount of damages, considering the degree of the defendant’s awareness of the infringement or possible loss, the economic benefits obtained by the infringer, the duration and frequency of the infringement, the fines imposed for the infringement, and the extent of the infringer’s efforts to seek remedies. This judgment specifically presents the scope of application of the punitive damages system and the criteria for determining intent.

The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a patent infringement injunction, destruction, and damages against the defendant based on the defendant’s sale and production of infringing products comprising all components of the patented invention in question, which related to a dish rack. However, the plaintiff did not initially claim increased damages for intentional infringement in the litigation. The District Court upheld the defendant’s infringement, granted the injunction and destruction request, and awarded KRW 20 million in damages.

Regarding the plaintiff’s claim for increased damages for intentional infringement raised in the court of appeals, the IP Court ruled that where acts of infringement occurred both before and after the enforcement of the increased compensation provision, the provision would not apply to infringement committed before enforcement, but would apply to the first infringement committed after enforcement.

Since the defendant’s infringement during the period claimed by the plaintiff could be subject to the increased damages provision, the IP Court upheld a finding of intentional infringement based on facts and circumstances confirmed through the production and sales volume of the defendant’s infringing products, the nature and frequency of the infringement (including continued infringement after the filing of the lawsuit and even after the District Court judgment), and the course of related proceedings prior to the filing of this case (including the criminal conviction, the defendant’s arguments, the timing for the trial to confirm the scope of rights, and the three consecutive dismissals of the invalidation trial). The Court therefore concluded that the defendant was liable for increased damages equivalent to three (3) times the amount of damages for each period of infringement.

This decision clarifies that even where infringement began before the enforcement of the punitive damages provision, the provision may still be applied to acts of intentional infringement occurring after enforcement. In addition, it should be noted that manufacturing and selling products solely in reliance on a trial decision confirming the scope of rights may be risky, as the Court considers the nature and frequency of the infringement and the course of related proceedings, such as invalidation trials, when determining intent.