The IP High Court recently held that when a foreign company posts and advertises infringing products on overseas e-commerce platforms or its own website that directly targets Korean consumers, such conduct constitutes an “offer for sale,” a form of patent infringement under the Korean Patent Act. This ruling is significant in that the principle of territoriality in the online commerce environment may be expansively interpreted to render Korean patent rights enforceable against online overseas activities (IP High Court Case No. 2023 Na 10693 rendered on May 22, 2025; final and binding).

▶Background

The Plaintiff, an Italian company, owns Korean patents relating to sock knitting machines. The Defendant, a Chinese company, manufactured products falling within the scope of these patents in China and posted them on a foreign e-commerce platform and its own website to advertise and promote sales thereof. 

In posting the product online, the Defendant provided product information in Korean, enabled payment in Korean won, allowed orders and deliveries to be made within Korea, and offered inquiry and consultation services to Korean consumers in Korean. Based on these acts, the Plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit, claiming that the Defendant’s conduct constituted an “offer for sale” under Article 2(3) of the Korean Patent Act.

Under the principle of territoriality, patent rights are effective only in the country of registration. Accordingly, the key issue in this case was whether posting products on overseas e-commerce platforms or foreign websites could be regarded as an “offer for sale” in Korea.

▶Seoul Central District Court Decision

The Seoul Central District Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, for the reason that the Defendant’s postings were made outside Korea and that all elements of the offer—including the offeror, the product, and the price—were present abroad. Therefore, the court held that the conduct could not be considered an “offer for sale” made in Korea. It further noted that simply providing a Korean-language webpage or displaying prices in Korean won was not enough to establish a domestic offer for sale.

▶IP High Court Decision

The IP High Court reversed the district court decision and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff. It first confirmed that Korean courts have jurisdiction under Article 39 of the Act on Private International Law, specifically Article 39(1), which provides that, in intellectual property infringement cases, Korean courts have jurisdiction if the effects of the infringement occur in Korea (subparagraph 2) or if the infringing act is directed toward Korea (subparagraph 3). The Court found that the material facts in this case had a substantial connection to Korea, to thereby establish the Court’s jurisdiction.

The Court further noted that the Defendant had provided product information in Korean, received orders and payments from Korea in Korean won, and offered consultation services to Korean consumers in Korean. Viewed together, these factors showed that the Defendant’s postings on the foreign e-commerce platform and its own website were directly targeted at Korean consumers. On this basis, the Court held that the postings constituted an “offer for sale” under the Korean Patent Act, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s patent rights.

▶Implications

This decision is the first that clearly holds that even when the online activities of foreign companies take place outside of Korea, they may still constitute patent infringement if they are substantially directed at Korean consumers. In particular, the decision may make it possible for patentees to seek border enforcement to stop the influx of the infringing goods at the Customs without having to bring a further legal action.