​I. Improvement to the Patent Examination Deferral System – Greater Flexibility in Adjusting Deferred Examination Timing​ 

As of May 14, 2026, the amended Enforcement Rules of the Patent Act and Utility Model Act have come into effect, allowing the patent examination deferral system to operate with greater flexibility.

Previously, once two months had passed from the filing of a request for deferred examination, it was practically difficult to change the deferred examination timing or withdraw the request itself. As a result, there had been concerns that the system was burdensome to utilize, particularly when business schedules or product launch plans changed after the request had been filed.

Under the revised rules, applicants may now, at any time before substantive examination begins, move the deferred examination timing forward or backward, or withdraw the request for deferred examination altogether.

The deferred examination system can be particularly useful where applicants wish to align the timing of examination and patent protection with product launch schedules, investment plans, or market conditions. In particular, the revised system is expected to offer greater practical flexibility for applicants seeking to coordinate prosecution strategy with business and commercialization plans.

As the number of deferred examination requests has continued to increase in recent years, it appears likely that more applicants will consider utilizing the system as part of their overall patent filing strategy.

​II. Precedents​ 

The Patent Court Decision 2025Heo10411 dated April 29, 2026

​a. Background of the Case​ 

Registered Mark (Plaintiff's Mark):

Reg. No. 40-1665940 / Reg. Date November 25, 2020 / Designated Goods (Class 30): Processed coffee, cereal-based processed products, cereal-based snack food, etc.

The mark at issue (Defendant's mark):

Designated Goods: Processed grain products, grain powder and grain-based processed products, edible grain-based processed products, etc.

The plaintiff owned the registered trademark “Simpleat” (Reg. No. 1665940) covering various food products in Class 30, including processed grain products, sauces, tea, bread, snacks, and confectionery items.

The defendant used the mark “EATsimple” in connection with grain-based processed food products. The plaintiff filed a scope confirmation trial before the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board (IPTAB), arguing that “EAT simple” fell within the scope of the registered trademark “Simpleat.”

The IPTAB dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that the two marks were not similar in appearance, pronunciation, or concept. The plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal seeking cancellation of the IPTAB's decision.

​b. Summary of the Court's Decision​ 

The Court upheld the IPTAB's decision and found that “EAT simple” did not fall within the scope of the registered trademark “Simpleat.” The Court reasoned that the individual terms “simple” and “eat” had weak distinctiveness in relation to food products because they merely suggested characteristics or purposes of the designated goods. Accordingly, no single portion of the registered mark could be regarded as a dominant element, and the marks had to be compared as a whole.

The Court further found that “Simpleat” constituted a coined term created by combining “simple” and “eat” into a single expression while omitting one letter “e.” This distinctive structure contributed to the mark's overall distinctiveness.

Comparing the marks in their entireties, the Court concluded that the visual appearances differed due to the arrangement, typography, spacing, and presentation of the words; the pronunciations were different; and the conceptual meanings were not directly comparable because “Simpleat,” as a coined term, did not convey an immediately recognizable meaning to ordinary consumers.

Based on these findings, the Court held that the two marks were not similar and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.

​c. Our comment​ 

This decision is noteworthy in that, for a composite mark consisting of weakly distinctive words, the Court assessed similarity based on the overall commercial impression of the mark rather than treating a particular portion as the dominant element.

The Court further held that, although the individual terms “simple” and “eat” possessed weak distinctiveness, an unconventional combination such as “Simpleat” could nevertheless create independent distinctiveness as a whole.